User talk:TarnishedPath

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I appreciated your comment about how to organize the sections in an RFC to promote discussion. I thought your approach is both realistic and helpful, and your explanation might encourage others to do the same. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SDSS J0849+1114

Hello! Your submission of SDSS J0849+1114 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chaiten1 (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for SDSS J0849+1114

On 25 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SDSS J0849+1114, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that light travelled 1.06 billion light-years from a trio of galaxies in the constellation of Cancer, where three supermassive black holes were colliding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SDSS J0849+1114. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SDSS J0849+1114), 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for responding to the StoneToss GA review while I wasn't there and for help along the way.—Alalch E. 21:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PARAKANYAA -- PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

The article Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) for comments about the article, and Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PARAKANYAA -- PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moira Deeming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Moira Deeming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moira Deeming

The article Moira Deeming you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Moira Deeming for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for StoneToss

On 23 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article StoneToss, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that X's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, StoneToss), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter

On 29 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the first standalone street toilets to cater to both men and women in Auckland were converted into a male-only facility during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Symonds St Public Conveniences and Former Tram Shelter), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

On 9 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Sewell attempted to recruit Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, into the Lads Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Monica Smit has been accepted

Monica Smit, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 12:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

• News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5

• Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited

• Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin

• In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?

• In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial

• Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody

• Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Please explain your behavior

Could you please explain your behavior here, specifically why it is acceptable for you to repeatedly accuse others of acting in bad faith / violating a number of bad faith centric guidelines, and why you believe it is acceptable to demand that someone you have accused must strike their opposition to your accusation or else be in violation of yet another WP:PAG?

You have freely accused me of violating WP:PAG, in this instance of violating WP:CANVASS. I called the accusation false and briefly explained how the action is itself diametrically opposed to the accusation you asserted. You provided no attempt at substance, and instead have claimed that I called you a liar and are demanding I retract what you have claimed to be an WP:ASPERSION. I would like an explanation as I cannot make sense of this whatsoever, and it has diverted a mainspace talk topic into a tangentially related sidebar. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the thread, TarnishedPath is entirely correct. In your main comment, you accused TarnishedPath of violating WP:CON, and of ignoring other editors to force through their point of view. When they very reasonably asked you to explain how they were violating WP:CON and noted that you’d only pinged some of the involved editors, you immediately accused them of 3 separate policy violations; of trying to get you to violate bludgeon, of assuming bad faith, and of lying about you canvassing. Reasonably again, TarnishedPath asked you to withdraw those aspersions. Respectfully, I think only you need to explain your behaviour, Razgriz. GraziePrego (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are flatly incorrect across the board.

1) I did not accuse this user of anything in my initial comment. It is another user who I have accused of violating WP:CON elsewhere in relation to the topic, a fact which Tarnished is fully aware as they have been very actively participating in each discussion of the issue across multiple pages and NB's.

2) I pinged every single user involved in the highlighted topic. Not "some", ALL. Including a user who only posted one single message in the topic. Absolutely undue to frame the action in such a way as to obfuscate that core fact.

3) They have repeatedly, for several weeks now, accused me of violating half a dozen different WP:PAG, asserting actions by me have been done in bad faith immediately even with little or no cause to assume such. My 3 accusations are in line with their own methodology in handling such issues (example: when I cite a PAG in relation to a users actions, Tarnished has issued multiple statements to me telling me to not WP:ABF. So when citing a PAG in relation to my actions, especially one which factually does not apply, saying the same to them is justified and fair and due).

4) If we wish to dispense with politeness and context and just get down to facts, then yes Tarnished has lied in asserting I committed WP:CANVASS. However, I at no point stated that Tarnished is a liar, because unlike some people I actually do WP:AGF instead of leaping to extremes.

So I repeat @TarnishedPath, would you care to explain your behavior towards me and why you feel it is acceptable to treat others in such a way that you yourself do not want to be treated? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Your WP:INCIVIL, WP:ASPERSION casting comments on my talk are noted. TarnishedPath^talk 01:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So you double down by asserting it is uncivil to ask you to address your own WP:INCIVIL behavior, where you yet again called my character into question and asserted I had performed a bad faith action? Bold move Cotton.

Do not accuse me of bad faith without merit, without evidence, and without validation. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Either take it to WP:AN/I where others can judge, as Grazie has above, or don't. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Unlike some people, I actually believe freedom of expression is a human right, and that it is a two way street. Taking this to WP:AN/I does nothing. As strongly as you and the other user feel about me, we witnessed first-hand that it all ended up being a giant waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, if an action did take place, it would be towards an outside entity (admins) restricting your ability to express yourself, and I do not want that. That is unproductive and often does more harm than good in my view.

So instead, I am treating you like an adult and telling you to either interact with me with mutual civility, or don't interact with me at all. Failing that, don't dare to take offense to getting to taste your own medicine when it is pointed out when your behavior violates WP:PAG. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)