User talk:R. G. Checkers

This is R. G. Checkers's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

WP:TE at Donald Trump

You just added the exact wording that was not endorsed at the RfC and that was not endorsed by the closer of the RfC -- an RfC that was itself disruptive and unnecessary. Your behavior is way past what I would consider worthy of a topic ban, although just to let you know I am unlikely to do the work to document this and other overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles. I really suggest you slow down, take a breather, and consider the feedback and other reactions you've been getting from many experienced editors on a variety of pages. Wishing you success, as always. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Your correct is saying the close did not endorse a specific wording, but it did say that there is a consensus to mention Trump's doubts "in some capacity." The current wording is not in line with what is now established consensus, and I made a BOLD edit, as recommended by the closer, to address the issue. I only chose that specific wording because it undeniably garnered some support, maybe not consensus, but support nonetheless. I don't have a problem with you reverting, but I would like to see text that is not in line with consensus be changed to conform with the consensus to mention Trumps doubt. This isn't the place to discuss content, but I think Space4Times proposal in that RfC was pretty good if you wanna go add it. Thank you for wishing me success, but you shouldn't accuse me of behavior "worthy of a topic ban" and editing with a POV, without any evidence. You and I both know that is WP:Casting aspersions and is certainly not assuming good faith, and saying you're not going to do the work to document it is not a valid excuse for casting aspersions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like it to be noted that I believe the edit SPECIFICO is referring to is this one [1], and it's the first edit I believe I've ever made to the Russian section of the Trump article. I'm not sure how this could amount to WP:TE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent deflection. That's exactly what you proposed in a needlessly repetitive RfC, then after it died with no consensus your "first edit" is exactly what did not get support in the RfC. Now maybe you can chew on that and reflect on "not sure: how that could amount to WP:TE. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: That was the first time that sentence had ever been BOLDly added to the article space. Just because it doesn't have an established consensus doesn't mean its been rejected per say. I was just testing the waters with the edit, and you reverted which is fine. That's not TE. Also you desperately need to stop conflating what you reject with what the community rejects. Your continue to fight the change of a sentence that there has been consensus against for half a year, and then you attack me for making a good faith attempt to change that sentence after a close is made. Your conduct towards me in this discussion and this one are giving me stress and creating a toxic editing environment. I'm asking you to stop this behavior and especially stop casting aspersions against me, as you have in this very discussion. You are personally attacking me and my integrity. You are the only editor in the entire Trump page who is behaving in this manner towards me. I've always tried my best to be cordial and work with you on improving Wikipedia, but it's becoming increasingly hard with this behavior. I'm asking you to please stop, and calm down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

72 hour archival?

Hello @iamreallygoodatcheckers, I'm guessing that our arbitration was archived automatically due to 72 hours of inactivity, how do we get it back? We still fully agree on the necessity of a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Tennisedu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krosero: I'm not sure how it can be brought back. Maybe ask an admin, but honestly, if the user you had concern over is no longer breaking the rules or disrupting the tennis area just let it go for now. Thats the easiest thing to do imo. It can always be brought back up if the behavior persists. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, and that may in fact be the best way to go. But I remain uneasy because the discussion has simply disappeared, and so I don't think any of the users involved are clear about what's happened, or whether we've even come to an agreement. Which is why I expect the issue to come up again. As I say, I think your advice may be the best way to go, but I've asked an admin to take a quick look and to see if they can help us at least formally close the discussion, so everyone is clear about what to do.

And thank you again for looking at our petition.Krosero (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, the admin suggested maybe starting a new ANI thread, linking to the old one, but I think we can let this go for now. As you saw in the old thread, the user in question agreed not to further edit the proposed pages, and as you say, this can be resurrected if the need should arise.Krosero (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move of 2022 abortion protests in the United States to 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States

Hey. Quick question, given that the article is still subject to an AfD request, and it's unclear to me right now from a brief glance as to whether keep or merge has consensus, was it really a good idea to move that article if consensus does wind up being merge? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: I don't see why it would be an issue. Do you think it could be an issue? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll cause any technical issues, aside from maybe some confusion for the AfD closer as the article has a different name now than when the AfD opened. It just seems strange to me to move/rename an article that may not even exist once the AfD closes. Not saying you should undo it mind, just wondering if it was really the right thing to do when the article may no longer exist sometime in the next few days/week. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Yea when I did the move I thought it may be done in vain, but I suppose there's no harm in improving the article while readers have access to it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]