User talk:109.255.211.6

Welcome to Wikipedia!

[New section after the fact to fix my own having inattentive replied in the wrong place.]

Thanks for the welcome-template, painfully large though it be. Any particular reason for the {{Static IP}} element, though? From its documentation page, it's "helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or ban them". It's not helpful to me, so unless you're indeed 'wishing to warn or ban me', I'll be removing it, if that's OK with you. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{static IP}} is not part of {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Is it a different susbst'd template, then? Or has this greeter seemingly added it 'bespoke' some some reason? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; they were added by two different editors about 2 1/2 years apart. Welcome_to_Wikipedia was added September 22, 2018‎ by Pdebee while Static_IP was added April 29, 2021‎ by Thewolfchild. These deails are visible in this page's history. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Yes, of course, my bad. Sorry, I was evidently confused by it being added at the top of the talk page, inattention to the time stamp, and too much blood in my caffeine-stream. I might be trusty, but Back In the Day, new talk-page messages went at the bottom. Unless they're supposed to play some other role. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; we're all capable of error, especially when that pesky blood is getting in the way of caffeine delivery ;) Take it easy Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I added the template. It's a standard template, found on WP:Twinkle, and part of group of IP user page templates found on hundreds of thousands of IP user pages. It does say "Welcome" right on it, and encourages IP users to create an account, which has many benefits, including anonymity, and Fred Gandt has been on WP long enough to know this (curious as to why he's watching this page, responded so quickly, and made no effort to clarify the benign nature of the template. His comment actually does quite the opposite). It's not a warning, and there is nothing nefarious or otherwise negative about it. The only information there, specific to this account, is openly available with the IP address, that you sign every comment with, and is stamped on every edit you make. You removed it contrary to WP guidelines, with the edit summary: "removing Static IP header, as it's unclear why it was added, and seems to have unwanted connotations". Just what "connotations" are you referring to? I look forward to your reply. Meanwhile, the template should be re-added. - wolf 02:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: See Template talk:Welcome to Wikipedia#Used of the "Static IP" template on opening salutations. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw that, and commented there. Didn't realize this user had gone to a template-space talk page to start screaming about this... whatever this is. I'll state again that I'd like to know what "connotations" the user was referring to? While I know there is nothing wrong with adding a "static ip" template to an IP user talk page, I also know that falsely accusing another editor of violating the project's policies & guidelines is not permitted. I'd also like to know why this user didn't simply ask me about this. That is, after all, what talk pages are for. And lastly, just where is this issue supposed to be discussed, since it's usually supposed to be kept to a single place. I will keep this page on my watchlist. - wolf 02:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no connotations to the template, suggesting what they are is screaming about it, and removal of it is Impermissible. OK, got all that. (That might or might not need a tag of some kind.) I think my comments already pretty clearly address the questions you now ask -- in what appears to me to rather peremptory and less than optimally civil terms, indeed, while we're offering critiques on that score. Could you perhaps clarify what part of that guideline removal of this is 'contrary to'? If it was intended as a normal talk-page message, it was added in a confusing and counter-intuitive manner -- witness my own confused replying to the wrong user. If it's supposed to hover at the top of the page as some sort of perma-header, I'm not aware of any requirement that that be maintained as such, nor can any immediately find any reference to such on the page you refer me to, so some considerably greater specificity would be useful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added hundreds, perhaps thousands of these templates, and along with the thousands more on pages I've seen that we're already added by other users... I really don't think I've ever seen anyone react to it the way you have (one might even characterize it as an "over-reaction"). I don't see what you find so "confusing and counter-intuitive" about it, perhaps you could clarify that. And it is a "welcome" template... it says "welcome" right on it. It is placed at the top off the page automatically, and really, it doesn't make sense to have placed at the bottom, mixed in with other threads and notices. It could be over-looked. And while other contents can be removed, this one shouldn't. There are no hidden or alterior motives here.

You stated there were "unwanted connotations" to the template (twice! so far...) You have not clarified that (and yes, when you post a complaint, part of it in ALL CAPS, that's considered screaming). You wrote; "I might be overthinking this, but the connotations seem to be 'SIGN UP FOR AN ACCOUNT OR ELSE WE'LL LOUDLY DISCUSS WHERE YOU ARE'." Really? You think the template is some kind of threat? If you don't sign up for an account, someone (the secret cabal I suppose) will loudly (in ALL CAPS I suppose) make a point of posting your location on talk pages... somewhere (even though that's not allowed and just not done)... you really believe that's the message here? You believe that's the actual intent of that template? If you believe that such sinister functions exist on this project, why take part? And if you you're so concerned about your location being revealed, then why are you plastering your IP address all over the place? Why not opt for an account that affords you the privacy you seek?

Lastly, per WP:UP (as stated above) but specifically WP:UP#CMT:

A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:

For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses.

So as I said, it shouldn't have been removed and should probably go back. There's nothing evil going on here. I'm trying to address your concerns, but it would be helpful if your responses didn't provide vague/non-answers, while adding more accusations and comments that just need additional clarification. Thank you - wolf 04:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

Happy editing! Coryphantha Talk 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you make positive contributions to wikipedia. You should make an account. I think you'd make for a good member of our community.VR _talk 18:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second Vice regent, make an account, you've already contributed so much, I agree!

You’ve made very positive contributions and consistently contribute to talk page conversations. You should make an account, you’d make an EXCELLENT member of the WP community! (Not that you don’t already, but be recognized for your efforts! :))Spf121188 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding my endorsement to the views above. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because I came here to suggest the same thing! 109, your insight and contributions have been very helpful. While an account isn't required, you should consider the benefits! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 109.255.211.6. You have new messages at 747pilot's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

747pilot (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Toal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used any prior account on Wikipedia? I'm thinking User:Ledenierhomme and his various socks. nableezy - 19:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Nableezy: I was fairly puzzled by this comment having been left on my talk page -- with your signature and an old datestamp, and none added by the actual message-sender. But apparently it's an unsigned c'n'p of this message that you originally left for EnlightenmentNow1792. Rather odd behaviour by most standards, but as nothing for that user. (I'd have left this on your own page, but evidently I can't; I assume due to unflagged semi-protection.) Just thought you might like to know. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just FYI, WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK only applies to "currently active block"s. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks, my bad on that then. Seems poor practice -- if not outright deceptive editing -- for users to partially remove a section of their talk page to leave the text of their request intact, but to disappear the response declining it, but I'll leave 'em to it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I would recommend. It also broke the template formatting. shrug Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing. It is not a good deletion as it breaks the unblock (and makes it look like it was not declined) but the block is no longer active. It is certainly not a good sign, but it is the users choice, it is their talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw it on the pile if there's another WP:AN/I or similar about this user. Or more likely, when there's one, and if I'm around and have the spoons. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a 1-on-1 will be more productive (WP:TALKSTALK aside). I think the origins of WP:NSPORTS now expose it to WP:WIKILAWYERING. NSPORTS sought to identify objective conditions what were quick, reliable indicators that WP:GNG could be met. Therefore, the spirit was not to evade GNG, but to complement it. Along the way, some sports added leagues that were not good indicators that GNG could be met. Ideally, those league get removed. Instead, all leagues have been removed. Now some want to cripple NSPORTS even more, and render it useless in any AfD. Meanwhile, WP:N reads that a page meeting SNG is presumed to be notable. Thus, I see the two problems being:

1. Some sports listed leagues that should have been removed
2. Some AfD participants blindly cite "Keep: meets NSPORTS"
3. Some AfD participants are miffed that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, when a subject that meets NSPORTS doesn't have significant coverage identified (yet)

The participation criteria are now being revisited. A bit more drastic than I think was needed, but some specific sports' inaction brought this onto the whole of NSPORTS. OK. I just don't see where we now need to further neuter "Keep: meets NSPORTS" because NSPORTS "relies" on GNG. Interested in your ideas. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I don't know much about its origins, though I did once rashly look at the beginning of the page history. The previous text and its "presumptions" were a mess, and that people had very different takes on its meaning doesn't necessarily make either faction vexatious wikilitagators. Yes, I agree with all three of your two problems. (50% extra free!) Getting over my initial despair at seeing what at first sight looked like stonewalling and zombie-ing of the RfC changes, I do now have a better understanding of how they're crucially different: we're now consistently using "likelihood" rather than "presumption", in the guideline lead, body sections, and Beanie's proposal. How likely "likely" has to be is a little open-ended, and it wouldn't have to be as near-infallible as I was thinking when I made my comment at the Wikiproject. So we're all good in that sense. Nor am I opposed, should it still be on the table, to reading the participation and achievement criteria as a longer-term stay of deletion than the one-week AfD timeframe. My purely personal impression is that any likely combination of these two sorts of metric still gives us weirdly sports-heavy inclusionism of what's essentially sportscruft, by weighting heavily to what's essentially back-page newspaper ephemera and its online counterpart. But I don't think that's foreseeably fixable, so it's not a windmill I plan to spend time and energy tilting at. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I was thinking of using you as a devil's advocate on a possible sport-specific proposal, but can also see if you're burnt out on what might possibly be a fait accompli. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to here out any such proposal, it's more the roiling mass at the RfC and the guideline page that I despair of. Nothing promised mind you! If I were a gambling person, I might speculate that we were going to see more rumbling between the two camps. On the one hand, we'll have people who think that 'likely' means 51% of people who were NFL-adjacent across all time obviously pass GNG, as measured by the quaint-sounding local paper or some scrappy website, so they should be covered. On the other, that it means 99.99% of people in that precise cohort, and they've had a feature in the NYT or a bestselling book written about them. But as it's just determining a likelihood, which procedurally is just the difference between a PROD and an AfD, in theory it should matter much less and be less heated... right? In practice, who knows. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will see how it goes. Even if it's 100%, somebody moved the goalposts by saying they didn't want an SNG that someone could take and mass-produce stubs.—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's even feasible. Short of saying "no stubs" or "here's a quota on your stubs". As I recall, the RfC supported Cbl62's "you need more than a DB-type source", so that doubtless makes it harder and slowly, but you could clearly write as many stubs as you like with sources... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you indented it as a reply to me, you add an 1 indent to reply to a user.

like this.

If you wish to reply to that comment you do it like this.

If you wish to reply to the first comment you do it like this.

You indent is so that is is one "indent" from the user you're replying to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:As I said, I realized after the fact that's how you'd interpreted it, but frankly in a way that made no logical sense. I was saying something broadly similar to you on the actual topic, but somehow loudly in disagreement with your intermediate comment? And that's pretty clearly not a general talk-page practice: see bazillions of threads, ibid! And one that routinely makes an utter mess of many when it is used, leading to confusion of parallel paragraphs from different users being mistaken as being a single one, out-of-time-order top-posting, etc. In the future I may remember to think to add {{u}}s for added clarity, where I think to anticipate common-sense not being available, but I certainly won't be adopting the equal-ident practice you're instructig. And would urge others to abandon it too! Without any actual hope of being heeded. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tone of the page (in general) I am not assuming anything about peoples intent. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very valid point on that score. I'll endeavor to err on the "making it maybe more explicit than necessary" side, where spoons are available. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News sources that explicitly debunk your POV: AFP,^[1] BBC,^[2] DW,^[3] CNN,^[4] WashPo,^[5], Financial Times,^[6].

The acknowledged scholarly experts (A. Umland, K. Fedorenko, A. Shekhovtsov, and others) publishing in Peer-reviewed academic journals that explicitly debunk your POV:

Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019). Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 47(5), 774-800.

Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.

Umland, A. (2019). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).

Fedorenko, K. Umland, A. (2019). "Zwischen Front und Parlament: Freiwilligenverbände und Parteien in der Ukraine." OSTEUROPA, 69. Jg., 3 4/2019, 163-176.

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only might you want to WP:AGF, to be a little be WP:CIVIL, and to avoid baseless surmise as to what my "POV" might be and whether I allow it to affect my editing, you should perhaps consider keeping editing disputes on a particular topic on that article's talk page, unless there's some strong reason to do otherwise. You wouldn't want to give the impression you were going out of your way to pick fights in other venues. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to ask, but I've found it's better for my peptic disposition not to 'sign up' to things on Wikipedia. So likely I'll be keeping my contributions, if any, to be ad hoc. But I'll be sure to drop by if I come across something in need of centralised discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"better for my peptic disposition" is the new way I'm getting out of washing the dishes. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that strategy! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Will you please place state your position in the 'survey section' of the Ocean RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? As far as I'm aware, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. You may have intended this for another user, Otr500. Though as you've already asked them three times, a fourth might be overdoing it a tad. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, quick note, the Queen Elizabeth disambiguation page doesn't mention russian liz at all. I understand she was empress, not queen, but considering the interchangeability of terms (the DAB mentions Empress Elisabeth of Austria), I'm surprised it doesn't mention her. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue really; Russian Liz's article doesn't mention the exact term either, and in that case there's no subsidiary article that's a more strictly DABRELATED-compliant target. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Trickle-down economics, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oopsemoops: I very much disagree. There's no "original" addition here whatsoever, much less OR or SYNTH. This is an attempt to summarise the existing content of the article, and to address the problems with the previous opening sentence, which (as I said in my edit summary) I already broached on the article talk page. To languish without response, until (and including, even after your near-immediate revert) now. There's no necessity for any aditional sources here: see WP:LEADCITE. Please consider reverting your own revert entirely, or if not, then at least making some more constructive partial revert, addressing the points raised. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unnecessarily (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited by Adakiko to enter a discussion on his talk page. I didn't realize there would be other people offering advice. I shall indeed make myself acquainted with the two you suggested, and then hopefully get back to the conversation.

Unnecessarily (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Talk pages are public, so it's always a possibility. Or risk, depending how you want to look at it. I just happened to be on Adakiko's talk page for another matter entirely, and just happened to notice your comments. No more to it than that. As for the discussion about the article, it might also be more productive to have that discussion on Talk:Gordon Williamson (writer). That makes it easier to organise them by topic and sub-topic, rather than 'my edits vs your edits'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i thought the page talk would have been better, but Adakiko contacted me on my talk and invited me to theirs....so what do you do?? Unnecessarily (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you can do either -- or both, or neither. But if you want to get into the specifics of each part of your (prior or possible future) changes to a particular article, that talk page is generally the best venue in the first instance. I'm sure Adakiko is able to answer any questions relating ti their own conduct, or other matters you might wish to raise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (109.255.211.6) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, but as you can see on this very page, I had a very similar template-welcome about four years ago! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, your position at the RFC (at Charles III) that DrKay has opened (concerning the infobox), comes across a tad incoherent. I'm not entirely certain as to what you're arguing for. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't get direct answer out of you. Can't say I didn't try. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You didn't try." Ask me an actual meaningful question and I may (or may not!) answer it. If you just say "I don't understand", and "it's incoherent", then not so very likely at all. Also, comments at the bottom of the page, please, or topically related. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you proposing for the infobox? At the moment it says "King of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms". The dispute (in the RFC) is whether or not to use a footnote or not for the "...other Commonwealth realms" bit, or a drop down 'collapse' list, for the "...other Commonwealth realms", bit. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know, an edit-conflict between us created a mess on the talkpage. I had to revert your post, to correct the mess. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my bad, though in a rather weird way. Runaway nowiki in one of my (much) earlier comments eating everything in between when I then used a second one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later today, I'll contact the rest of the WikiProjects about the Charles III task force. Like WP:Saint Lucia, WP:Papua New Guinea, etc. GoodDay (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's grand. I just went with the countries that had flagged themselves as "Top-Importance" interested parties on the article talk page. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Oceanic dolphin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. Maybe slow down a little and pay a bit more attention to what you're reverting, please. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

109, you've proven yourself time and time again to be an excellent contributor to talk page discussions and unprotected articles, even if we don't always agree on everything. I know that you know the benefits to account creation, so I'm not going to condescendingly remind you of them, but I do think you should consider; it would make changing content in Charles's article easier, for example.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're too kind, Tim! And the frustrations of the ChuckTres article saga have made me consider it, not gonna lie... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if CIII gets a bit acrimonious sometimes. Unfortunately, that's what happens when 4 different editors who disagree on matters of Wikipedia's royalty policy and guidelines are put into a task force and have to broker some form of deal in a limited timeframe that has to also be accepted by the wider community. Hopefully it ends up alright; if not, try and try again. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, acrimony-wise I've seen worse. Much worse. It's just a bit dispiriting when a small handful of us are trying to make improvements at a finite pace, and others appear to be endlessly kicking for "no consensus", "'maintain' it at B-grade", "have it how I like it" and "no nothing for an arbitrary period of time" touch. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win. I reserve the right to grumble about it extensively after the fact. 109.etc (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Great job pushing the DYK section on Talk:Charles III on a path toward archiving (hopefully)! In all seriousness, the section probably would have languished on the talk page for another year or two if you hadn't noticed it. By the way, I'm glad to see you active again. You're a great editor and Wikipedia is lucky to have you around. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My word, an anonstar! Thanks, I'm suitably tickled. I don't know if "active" is necessarily quite accurate, but I do find myself making the occasional copyedit on some random article I've looked at for some random reason. Then I find myself looking at the horrorshow that is the C3 lead again, and... OK, that is activity, of a sort! It's how they suck you back in... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_fhbro_eng.aspx?id=2795 Rideau Hall is a vice-regal residence. It is the official residence of the governor general. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of the monarch. But even if it were not, then there'd be a similar conflict between the lead and the infobox. Either way, one or both would have to change so as not to be in apparent contradiction to the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) According to the Parks Canada website:

"The Rideau Hall Complex contains the official residence, the landscaped grounds and the outbuildings, which together constitute the vice-regal estate of the Governor General of Canada." No mention is made of the monarch or of it being a royal residence.[1]

2) According to Canadian Heritage's schools page Rideau Hall is the:

"Official Residence of the Governor General of Canada" again no mention made of it being a royal residence[2]

3) The Governor General's website says Rideau Hall is:

"has been the official residence of every governor general of Canada since 1867 and their workplace since 1940." No mention of it being the King or Queen's official residence[3]

4) The website of the National Capital Commission, which administers the property, says:

"Rideau Hall has been the official residence and workplace of every governor general of Canada since 1867." Again, with no reference to it being a royal residence or the residence of the monarch.[4]

5) The Government of Canada (National Capital Commission) publication Official Residences of Canada says:

"Rideau Hall is a National Historic Site of Canada and has been the official residence and workplace of every governor general of Canada since 1867. Traditionally the home and workplace of the Governor General, Rideau Hall has played a prominent historical and constitutional role in Canada since Confederation." (pg 24) with no mention anywhere of it being a "royal residence" or official residence of the King or Queen.[5]

6)A Crown of Maples on page 5 has a portrait of the Queen with the following cutline:

"QUEEN ELIZABETH II STANDS BEFORE A PORTRAIT OF HER GREAT-GREAT-GRANDMOTHER QUEEN VICTORIA, PHOTOGRAPHED AT RIDEAU HALL, THE RESIDENCE OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL. OTTAWA, ONTARIO. JULY 1, 2010" Note that even though the Queen here is in situ in Rideau Hall itself, the building is not described as her official residence but as "the residence of the governor general".[6]

Wellington Bay (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you've attempted an Alexandrine solution by cutting out all reference whatsoever. Except that that just moves the Gordian Knot problem to the Rideau Hall article itself. Should it not describe that residence in those terms? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the sources do not support such a description. See also Government House, Canberra, Government House, The Bahamas, King's House, Jamaica (which despite the name, is not described as the official residence of the King), Government House, Wellington etc which are all described as the official residence of the governor general without qualification and without reference to also being an official residence of the monarch. The notion that Rideau Hall is a royal residence or official residence of the monarch is an inference but it's not supported by sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the characterisation are given on that article, so one would have to investigate whether they were insufficient. Those other places are, as I understand it, not official royal residences. But that does nothing to establish that those first two aren't. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the official sites for those structures, or indeed on the official webpage for the King of Canada[7] that make any reference to Rideau Hall or La Citadelle being royal residences. This seems to be an invention of monarchists that is unsupported by any official sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but the point stands. "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen (when in Ottawa) and her representative in the federal jurisdiction — the Governor General." From the first of the six sources given on that article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added that reference in the first place. How many days in the past 125 years has a monarch actually been in Ottawa? 40 days would be a generous estimate. That's an average of 8 hours a year. That means even if that line, which isn't part of the main text but just a photo caption, is accurate Rideau Hall is literally the monarch's official residence 0.1% of the time. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for me to point this is a wholly WP:OR argument as to what an "official residence" is? And an incorrect one at that, given the various "official residences" that go entirely unused by particular incumbents? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting using the 0.1% figure in the article - but making the point that if the photo caption source says that Rideau is the official residence of the monarch when he is in Ottawa, that actually doesn't amount to very much. The fact remains that official sources make no mention of the residence being a royal residence - this seems to be an interpolation by monarchists rather than anything officially stated by the NCC (which administers the property) or the Department of Canadian Heritage or Governor General's office. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still amounts to more than what's reflected in your current revision, however. Are you opposed to a possibly-lower-prominence statement to that effect appearing in the article? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to be read with a southern drawl. lol

Thanks for the correction. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, apologies if any rules have been broken, or any jokes ruined! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it was entirely yet another one of my typos. Your edit summary gave me a laugh, though. Plus, since youre in "anon mode", there's no other way to thank you for an edit. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fixing indents and bullets" is generally regarded as a legit exception to this, and is certainly not comparable to "making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments". Especially as hitting "reply" to an RfC OP leads to inconsistent behaviour in this respect. But I'll of course defer to anyone wishing to change it back... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that indentation style changes to comply with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY are allowed. That particular change was not really needed, as far as I'm aware. It's not one of the no-nos at MOS:INDENTMIX. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about the accessibility reasoning to be honest. Or maybe I've 'internalised' it as the underlying reason... I'd have thought it was such an instance (per the fourth example). Albeit it's the final element, and maybe was intended as a "comment" rather than a "!vote", so I might be wrong about that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=;An Invite to join WikiProject Canada

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Canada Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Canada. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the many Canadian related WikiProjects. The goal of WikiProject Canada is to improve the quality and quantity of information about the country on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject main page for more information.

Moxy🍁 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought, but I'm not at all knowledgeable about matters Canadian, and as a strategy I'm deliberately avoiding 'signing up to' anything on WP. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Dependent territories of the United Kingdom, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the MoS, kthnx. Unclear what "disturbed uniformity" you're referring to here. Likely better to keep specific discussion of the contents of the article to that page. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a curious notice. Or rather, a curious decision to notice. This is on foot of my non-articlespace edits "related to" "your" Vandalism of Stonehenge article, it seems? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, notifications is done as required by WP:ArbCom at WP:CTOPICS. Editors also do not "own" articles, so it is not related to "my" Vandalism of Stonehenge article, as I do not own the article. This is just a standard message sent out to editors who edit for the first time in a specific contentious topic. You can see more regarding this standard notification here: Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your own clarity, it's never "required" per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and the wording of its own text. ... anyone may alert..., emph. added. I'm quite sure this was simply a slight misunderstanding on your part or perhaps just a hasty choice of words. But it's an unfortunate look in the context of throwing phrases like "you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area".

On your comment about WP:OWN: that's precisely why that was in "scare quotes". Editors don't, and hence should be careful not to be seen to be acting as if they might feel otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mezzanine (album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The NFL Show/NFL This Week, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no. They were tense changes making consistent text already in the article, not "unsourced additions". It's also "strongly recommended" you read what you're reverting, and make good-faith attempts to fix -- exactly one character changed was needed here -- rather than wholesale removal. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to The NFL Show/NFL This Week, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicapierce (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 109.255.211.6. I saw that you restored an edit on Piri Reis map that was reverted. I know that having an edit reverted with no explanation is frustrating, but restoring it is not the right way to deal with it. Repeatedly restoring reverted edits may be considered edit warring, which may lead to a block, especially if you violate the three-revert-rule. The best way to adress this is ask about it on the article talk page and use discussion to try to reach a consensus. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

While it is indeed a little frustrating, more to the point it's contrary to editing policy, and a misuse of the 'undo' tool. The "best way" all around would have been for the user to have explained their revert -- as I did with both edits in question -- rather than for them to treat good-faith constructive edits as if they were vandalism. Or indeed, simply not reverting in the first place. That they did not do so hardly occasions a necessity on my part to go to still-greater lengths to explain my -- again, already explained -- edit. I'm sure you don't intend to follow the trope of 'logged-in user ignores policy, so threaten to block the anon', but you may be straying inadvertently close to that pattern. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you're currently discussing the issue with CosmLearner. It's not right that they reverted without explanation and I forgot to talk to them about it. To be honest, the reason I focused on you was because your edit was the one that showed up on Recent Changes and your edit summary suggested edit warring. If the reverse situation occured, I probably would have focused on the account.

I don't have anything new to add to the conversation on CosmLearner's talk page, so I'll avoid dogpiling and keep an eye on how things go. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough all around! Yes, perhaps ideally I'd not have reverted at all and gone straight to the talk page, even after the opaque undo. But I think there's a considerable distance between 'didn't have the spoons to go the extra mile' and 'edit warring'. As another user has restored the bizarre "Asia mainland" text though, I'll do so now. Well, next/eventually, at least. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

109.255.211.6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I seem to have been hit by the shrapnel of a rather broad-spectrum rangeblock. I'd suggest this be narrowed as it takes in static addresses that can't possibly be the intended target -- like mine. Unless someone's snuck into my hot press when I wasn't looking... Blocking admin is @NinjaRobotPirate:, who of course I'd ask directly, except, well...

Decline reason:

We won't be lifting this block. If you are an innocent user, you are free to edit but must sign in to your account. If you don't have an account, one may be created for you via WP:ACC. Yamla (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

109.255.211.6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not asking for it to be lifted. I'm asking for it to be narrowed. To all 8191 addresses except this one, if you want to be exceptionally thorough to the point of blocking that many. Again, this is a static IP address, so it should not be in any reasonable doubt that I'm indeed 'innocent'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate, I understand this was a CU block. Is there any public comment you can make about the need for it, and the possibility of narrowing the range? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public comment aside -- and I realize the CUs don't want to 'out' the sockmaster account here for privacy reasons, even though it seems fairly telegraphed from the public logs -- I don't understand why action is impossible here. Even if every other address in the range is dynamic and available to the 'puppets, if one acknowledges that this one is not... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to find narrower range blocks. Maybe there's something that would cause less collateral damage. If you don't want to get caught in range blocks, though, I would suggest that you create an account. You're going to be assigned a temporary account soon, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly. I did previously create an account in a moment of particular exasperation at the restrictions on IPs -- and almost immediately repented of having done so. As and when the policy change comes into effect, I'll deal with that one way another without (too much) complaint. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]