Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016–17 Arsenal L.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danielle Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AllEliteWrestling.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lazer-kitty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
SSSB (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but regardless of how much time anyone puts into any articles, nobody owns them. You also need to cut the personal attacks and assume good faith. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Example: I went through Wikiproject:NASCAR in order to get those awful, often vandal-targets of cluttered number lists from the infoboxes (and since I derived the IndyCar box from the NASCAR box myself, it applied to that as well) removed. I agree that the lists of drivers should go, but the footnotes are not in any way cluttered. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: I assume good faith until it is proven I shouldn't; lazily reverting my contributions without any discussion suggests you are not operating in good faith, and instead only want to hammer through your own personal preferences. You talk about personal attacks when you're the one of accusing me of acting like I "own" a page; this a blatant lie. All I am trying to do is contribute to Wikipedia without being harassed. You started this, you are the one who went out of your way to harass me. I will not hold any ill will against you if you simply stop. Your next actions will speak volumes about yourself. Stop disruptively reverting my edits and simply open a discussion. It's not hard. But I will not be bullied into accepting your way. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: All you had to do was post on my talk page, or the article talk page, or even ping me at the WikiProject talk page, and raise your concerns regarding these edits and we could discuss them productively. Instead your instinct was simply to revert them and erase my contributions. That's unacceptable. Especially given that I made these edits weeks and weeks ago, and YOU even edited this page after I made them, only to suddenly later change your mind. Again - that's fine, you have an right to an opinion, BUT EXPRESS IT PRODUCTIVELY. DON'T JUST ERASE MY CONTRIBUTIONS! Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazer-kitty: Actually GhostOfDanGurney followed the correct protocal set out in WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, it is on you to go to the talk page to justify that edit. The article maintains its status quo (before you made your edits) until the discussion reaches a stage where it agrees with you
SSSB (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: Those edits were there for weeks and weeks AND GhostOfDanGurney contributed to the page after I made those edits, seemingly without a problem. If he has a problem with those edits now then I would be glad to productively discuss them, but I will not have my contributions erased and I will not be personally attacked by a bully insistent on silencing me. If you want me to go away, please simply state that and I will gladly leave. Otherwise you can treat me with a modicum of respect and we can move forward that way. Up to you.

Sometimes I wonder if it would be more worthwhile to simply copy articles I care about into my sandbox and improve them there, rather than waste my time dealing with the pointless bureaucratic infighting of such a needlessly hateful site. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise that the initial edits were made a long time ago. That changes things but only a little. If you want my advice: stop edit warring, leave the article in whatever state it's in and start a discussion on the talk page (pinging GhostofDanGurney to it) explaining your changes. Whose responsibility it is to start a discussion is secondary to a discussion starting or the state of the article during the discussion.

Also try to cut down the aggression, it means that disagreements are not going to escalate as quickly.
SSSB (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that I got too heated but it is extremely frustrating to try to contribute here with users who simply revert things they don't like, sometimes weeks after those changes have been made, and then insist they're in the right. Talk pages exist for a reason and it's incredibly easy to show fellow editors a tiny bit of respect and simply ask them to explain their changes or whatever before you blindly erase their contributions. But I guess that undo button is just a little bit easier. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to me, too. That doesn't mean I cast aspersions and accuse them of trying to bully or silence me. I reverted two minor deletions out of a host of other changes and that's your response? That doesn't exactly encourage one to engage with you. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm simply observing. And now I just observed you yet again revert the page and erase my contributions in favor of participating in productive discussions. You are indisputably a bully and I will not stop stating that fact until you stop bullying me and stop reverting the page. From the beginning the onus has been on you to behave respectfully and you have repeatedly refused to.

I also don't appreciate that you wrote "Per SSSB" in your revert comments even though continuing to revert the page is explicitly not what SSSB suggested. Lazer-kitty (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting to this [1] version by the IP @209.171.88.11:. You started the reverting, and you are also violating the 3-revert rule in addition to continuing your aspersion casting. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable. I'm reverting to the correct version and you will discuss from there. Don't really care about 3RR right now, more than willing to take the punishment for that if it means standing up to your abuse. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how I'm abusing anything right now? Your continued assumption of bad faith makes me not want to discuss anything with you right now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to revert the page. And again, I am not assuming bad faith, I am observing it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arrow McLaren SP; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
SSSB (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: I know you have to do this and I know there are consequences for edit warring but I simply will not stop reverting the page until GhostOfDanGurney stops reverting it himself and simply discusses why he disagrees with my changes. I am not going to let his bullying win. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks and edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the standard block for a 3RR violation is 24 hours. This block was aggravated by the fact that you stated your intent to keep edit warring for the purpose of "standing up to" a user, which is disruption to prove a point, and for repeated personal attacks. When you get into a dispute, comment on content, not contributors, and always abide by WP:BRD. There is no "right" side in an edit war, so you can't just keep reverting because you feel you're in the right. If you make any edit that gets reverted, it is on you to take it to the talk page and explain why you feel your edit should be made, and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. If you follow this advice, this will be the last time you run into this unfortunate situation. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Hi Swarm. I just want to point out that GhostOfDanGurney has oddly stopped discussing this issue now that I am blocked. Do you think it's maybe because he's not a good faith editor, and instead just trying to hammer through what he wants, which he now thinks he has won? I don't dispute your punishment but I think admins like yourself need to be more open minded to the bad faith way in which certain editors operate. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean be ignorant to those who obviously act in bad faith.

I sincerely have to ask - what's the point of being here? I spent a lot of time contributing to that page and had all of it undone WEEKS later by an editor who lazily insists his way is right and I must kneel to him and beg him to change his mind. Why would I even try to contribute here under these circumstances? It makes no sense.

The obvious and logical course of GhostOfDanGurney, were he actually trying to edit in good faith, would be to ping me and ask me why I made the edits I did. Why do you think he instead simply reverted me? I'd love to hear an answer. Lazer-kitty (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only continuing this engagement because you are misunderstanding several things. First, I am not the one who initially undid your changes; the IP user did so. I simply agree with them on the restoration of the content.

Secondly, I ceased discussing the matter because, at present, you are the only one arguing for the removal. When you decide to follow proper protocol, strike all personal attacks against me, and quit making sockpuppets to evade your block, then I will discuss things with you.

Thirdly, contrary to your "The world vs me" whinging, not all of your changes were undone. In fact, all but the footnote and list removal still exist. You're also ignoring all the contributions made before you started editing. Are they no longer valid? Did you discuss with the ones who made the content you removed?

Pinging @Swarm: as I'm not sure they are aware of the block evasion. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious and logical course of GhostOfDanGurney, were he actually trying to edit in good faith, would be to ping me and ask me why I made the edits I did. - that argument could just as easily be applied to you, this is something in which you are both equally guilty.
SSSB (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to cut out the personal attacks. Accusing GhostOfDanGurney of bulling you is a bad faith personal attack. Cut it out! I can only assume that this accusation of bulling arose because you were reverted without a reason. Then he could reasonably level the same accusation at you. No-one is tring to silence you, if you feel passionatly start a discussion. Otherwise move on. Editwarring and personal attacks are simply counter-productive to all those involved.
SSSB (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not complicated, and there's no debating here. If you're reverted, don't revert back, take it to the talk page. Don't accuse other editors of anything without direct proof, in fact don't talk about other editors at all. These are not difficult concepts. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: How about if edits have been in place for over a month, and you decide suddenly that you disagree with them even though you've edited the page multiple time since said edits were implemented, you take THAT disagreement to the talk page instead of lazily reverting edits that are, again, over a month old? How about that? How about actually contributing positively and productively instead of just saying "nah don't like it"? Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly relevant. Replace nah don't with I and that last sentence could just as easily apply to you. Constantly insisting you were right when everyone else is telling you your wrong is not helping your cause.
SSSB (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long an article has been a certain way is irrelevant. Bold editing is encouraged by policy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 12:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB and Swarm: I don't agree at all. I made these edits over a month ago and GhostOfDanGurney edited the page multiple times after my edits were made. If he saw my changes immediately and thought "whoa, no way" and then reverted them, to me that's perfectly fine. But to edit the page multiple times and have seemingly no problem with my changes, only to suddenly reverse course weeks later and undo all my contributions, that's not acceptable. At that point the proper course of action is to take it to the talk page, not lazily revert things you've suddenly decided you don't like.

Where does it end? If I liked an article better the way it was five years ago, can I revert it to that stage and demand every intermediate editor explain themselves?

ALL I AM ASKING IS FOR PEOPLE TO BEHAVE WITH A MODICUM OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS' CONTRIBUTIONS, and you're telling me I'm wrong? All I'm asking is for a person to explain themselves to me, not just erase my contributions. And that makes me an idiot and a fool in your eyes? Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At that point the proper course of action is to take it to the talk page, not lazily revert things you've ... decided you don't like. and All I'm asking is for a person to explain themselves to me, not just erase my contributions. are also actions you could have displayed to GhostOfDanGurney (if not after the first revert of GhostOfDanGurney, certainly the second). Had you done this you wouldn't have been blocked. Going to the talk page should have been the natrual step for you after you were reverted (likewise it should have been the natrual step for GhostOfDanGurney after he'd been reverted). Who should have gone to the talk page first and the state of the page whilst the issue was being discussed is secondry to the discussion taking place. Nobody is saying that GhostOfDanGurney handeled it correctly, only that handeled it incorrectly.
SSSB (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not secondary, it is THE primary issue we are discussing. GhostOfDanGurney caused this entire conflict by refusing to discuss the issue until it was reverted back to the version that he saw as acceptable. He repeatedly accused me of WP:OWN, yet he is the person who insisted we could not discuss any changes until the page had been reverted. I think this is yet another example of editors and admins on Wikipedia only punishing and criticizing the person who responds to such actions and fully and completely dismissing the person who actually instigated it, solely because they technically met the letter of the law. The absolute fact remains that this never would've happened if GhostOfDanGurney had simply pinged me to say he disagreed with my edits, rather than lazily reverting them after several weeks.

Thrilled to see of GhostOfDanGurney has any sincere interest in a reasonable discussion now. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LazerKitty how do you feel GhostDanofGurney was not blocked? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney wasn't blocked because he didn't break WP:3RR.
SSSB (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he have been blocked? Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney, Swarm, SSSB, and Ymblanter: I know that you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe me on this but I am not Zestkick and I have absolutely no idea who they are. This is without a doubt the single most baffling thing that has ever happened to me on the internet. I guess they are imitating me for the purpose of trying to get this account permanently blocked? I have no idea. Honestly if I were on your shoes I wouldn't believe me right now but...wow. GhostOfDanGurney, I apologize for snapping at you and everything I said to you, and I do not care about our previous dispute any longer. You were right, I was wrong. I just want to find out what the heck is happening here and who this person is. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a case for WP:CheckUser then.
SSSB (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that a checkuser wasn't contacted at the time, because it would have been of interest. Impersonation (we call this a joe job) is unfortunately a common occurrence in situations exactly like this. I'd suggest, just looking at this now, though checkuser data is not available at this time, that this does indeed fit the pattern of a certain well known impersonator. If that's the case then Lazer-kitty's guess is right. We most commonly pick this kind of thing up when a user's block gets extended and they lodge an appeal, and it's somewhat arbitrary so don't take it personally. Given the strong possibility of a joe-job, I'd suggest this is not brought up as a negative in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please leave the section about fans alone. This is a special situation that needs highlighting. It is already on the NASCAR Cup Series 2020 page so this is justified. Thanks---Wildarms007

@Wildarms007: No. If you want to add this section please discuss it on the relevant talk page and gain consensus to do so. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Brookline Blvd Pittsburgh.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although this image is made available under a Creative Commons license, not all Creative Commons licenses are sufficiently free for Wikipedia. The Flickr source indicates the license is CC BY-ND 2.0. No derivatives is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia licensing because that prohibits altering the image. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses for a list of licenses that are accepted by Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Daveout ^(talk) 19:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer-kitty I can see that you have good intentions but you need to calm down. You were right about Stallman’s article (at first). And thanks to you, a lot of errors were corrected. But now you’re just exaggerating. Can’t we just solve this amicably and reasonably? Leaving the past behind? -- Daveout ^(talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sending me messages like this is not helping. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I've re-opened the DRN request, please participate. (remember to keep it civil and avoid re-dragging unrelated past events (or i'll be encouraged to do the same)) — Daveout ^(talk) 01:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lazer-kitty: I'm sorry about the delay (other obligations have kept me off-project the last few days), but I just wanted to respond to your message here. I decided to reach out to you here on your talk page because, as a general rule, we aren't meant to be modifying such discussions after they move to the archive. To answer the question you posed there, I do think you're probably out of luck if you want more community attention at ANI at this time: it's just something that happens at times. For whatever reason (the issue was too complex, the conduct of the parties in dispute too difficult to disentangle, the idiosyncratic levels of community involvement on the forum this last week, and any number of other potential factors) your proposal/request for community involvement just didn't get picked up on. It happens at ANI sometimes, unfortunately. Though I should say, it's also entirely possible that a decent number of admins or other community members did give it at least some passing investigation but just didn't feel strongly enough that there was a course of action they could endorse, or additional insight they could provide on those facts. That too, does happen.

It is sometimes considered permissible in such circumstances to move the discussion out of the archive (if it is done with alacrity and there's an obvious issue that the community just hasn't found time to wrestle with yet), but I would have recommended against it in this instance even if I had been around that day, and definitely would have to warn you that doing so now would likely be viewed as disruptive, however understandable your motives. The long and the short of it is, I think this filing based on the conduct/dispute to date is a dead end and it probably makes sense to let the matter go. It may be a blessing in disguise anyway: Dave expressed a willingness to back off from the article in question, at least for a time, and for what it is worth, I have strongly encouraged him to embrace that impulse, and to work in areas where it will be easier for him to begin to internalize our content policies and become comfortable with the fact that sometimes they force us to make content decisions that run against the grain of things we believe (or even know) to be true. I also expressed to him that I thought this would have the extra benefit that the two of you would be given a break from one-another for the present time, hopefully making it easier for you and he to resolve any remaining difference of opinion more efficaciously even if you do end up interacting down the line.

It's my hope that he is going to follow that suggestion, but if he should return to the article and you feel his editing demonstrate tendentiousness and/or bias, I would just urge you to keep your cool and not fall into a cycle of recriminations. The truth of the matter is, the lack of a resolution at ANI not withstanding, you do have more eyes on the matter than many other editors would in these circumstances: Masem and El_C might actually consider this very much not a favour, but I suggest if necessary you can always raise the issue with one of them if the situation gets altogether untenable. I had a few interactions with Masem years ago, before he was an admin, and he left me with an enduring impression of someone who is very detail-oriented, calm even when others are losing their heads around him, and usually able to build a reasonable consensus path forward. I know that he said that he was unwilling to act in an administrative capacity in that situation after having commented on the content itself at NPOV/N (which was the right call, of course), but given he was willing to weigh in on the issue, he might at least be willing to comment further on the editorial matters if necessary and help you stabilize the content and the discussion surrounding it: again I have a recollection of him being very good at doing just that with regard to other contentious issues. El_C I don't know quite as well, aside from to say that he's a recognizable old hand in the community and as far as I know, considered a good admin. Anyway, since he was in fact the one who acted administratively to restrain the situation when it became necessary, he may be amenable to being made aware of any further escalations in the disruption that might occur with regard to the same cluster of issues. And of course, there's always the possibility of another ANI filing some way down the line, but I would encourage you to take any opportunity to resolve the matter short of that: as you have seen, it is not always the ideal space for resolving disputes.

Lastly, though I cannot bring administrative tools to bear on the situation, if you and Daveout do find yourself at a loggerheads over the article again, either of you can feel free to ping me regarding the matter and I will give you both a third opinion, and attempt to mediate a reasonable middle-ground solution you can both agree with: both of you seem to be more or less alright with my observations at the ANI and sometimes that's all that is needed in such circumstances: a third party to act as filter and go-between on the consensus process; if you think I might be helpful in that regard, I am happy to give it a go. :) I hope you'll forgive the over-long message here, but I felt that after being so slow to respond to your request, I owed you at least some effort to present you with what I thought were your best options moving forward. Let me know if I can clarify any of the above or be of help in any other way. Otherwise, until I see you next, happy editing! Snow ^{let's rap} 02:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Thanks for the in-depth answer! Hopefully we won't need your assistance in the future but I very much appreciate your willingness to help again if the need arises. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Richard Stallman? I was under the impression that Daveout had agreed to cease editing the article for the time being but he's just reopened another DRN. Personally I am not a fan of his assertion there that the "ANI case against me was completely ignored by admins, due to its utter baselessness and improperness (and pettiness)," nor his message on my talk page above saying "(remember to keep it civil and avoid re-dragging unrelated past events (or i'll be encouraged to do the same))." Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing the article, I'm discussing it. Trying to get some outside opinions on how to make it better. I'm not banned from doing that. In fact, El_C didn't blocked me from editing the talk page (which admins sometimes do). I'm doing the right thing this time, what you and I were supposed to have done all along, discussing it and trying to reach consensus instead of edit warring. And don't worry, I'm not going to edit the article myself even when my block expires.

Also, may I ask why you're avoiding so hard reaching for consensus at DRN? That's very "odd", to say the least. (I don't think I need to remember you that your preferred version has never gained consensus nor majority support (I know they aren't the same thing)). You keep saying that consensus is based on the quality of arguments, but so far you haven't provided ANY good argument in support of your version other than it was written by an admin (which is just an "argumentum ad verecundiam") — Daveout ^(talk) 13:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lazer-kitty, Daveout. A few thoughts here:

• Dave, I think you are likely correct in your read that El_C used the narrow block that they did (i.e. they blocked you from editing the article itself because of the edit warring, but I see nothing in their comments on your talk page which expressly suggests that you are banned from discussing the content of the article itself--though purely for your own benefit, it might not hurt to double-check your presumption with El_C, so there's no risk of a knock-on sanction. Regardless, I would also add that the technicalities of your block are just the beginning of the factors you ought to consider in re-engaging on that article at this time; just as it was at the time of our brief discussion last week, my advice remains that you should follow your initial impulse to pull away from the article for a time: if there is one thing that I think will most have an impact on whether you remain on the project longterm or flame out quickly, it is probably this--and we need longterm general editors more than we need extra discourse at Richard Stallman in particular, I daresay.

And while you are correct that the fact that the current version of the disputed text was written in part by an admin is irrelevant to any editorial determination, the fact that you had one admin (who also happens to be an editor who is an old hand with controversial BLPs and how to write them neutrally) find fault with your approach, and another sanction you for the same is not a good indication that you are headed in a great direction here, but rather an indication that you should probably pull back and learn the relevant policies in an area in which you have less strident perspectives. All of that said, that advice is just that--advice--and it is within your discretion to follow it or not. Regardless, do remember that a DRN requires the active participation of the parties to a content dispute, so not only do you need Lazer-kitty to be affirmatively open to that process, the good folks at DRN will not want to hear about behavioural accusations from either of you--which at present seems to be a difficult area for either of you to avoid any time you interact.

• LK, notwithstanding the overall tone of my advice to Dave above, the part you should focus on is that there appears to be no formal restriction on Dave's involvement at the Stallman article beyond the partial block for the article itself that is still in effect for the next three weeks or so. As such, there is no legitimate process for blocking his contribution to the relevant subjects, so long as there is no evidence of blatantly bad faith behaviour. At present he seems determined to contribute to said discussion, whether it is via the talk page or DRN; I have given one more effort at trying to discourage Dave from returning immediately to that process (and my predictions of the possible consequences and why I am urging him in another direction are genuine), but ultimately nothing seems to be currently barring his involvement pertaining that article, aside from the block preventing him from editing the article directly. Of course, you have every right to refuse to participate in the DRN process if you don't think it will be efficacious, but at that point Dave might just return to advance his case at the talk page. Either way, you do have the input from the NPOV/N thread (and possibly the editors engaged therein) to add to the consensus-building process, regardless of which space it ultimately takes place in. Ultimately it is your choice how much you engage with further discussion on the subject, and whether you Choose to stick to conventional talk page consensus or take a chance on alternative dispute resolution.

Now, beyond the above advice, there is only one additional thing I can offer to do here, and that is to attempt to mediate a reasonable middle-ground solution to the content that you both can accept and which might be endorsed by the other active editors on the article. This would not be substantially different from what DRN attempts to do, but we would instead use the talk page itself and discuss this matter in much the same way any consensus discussion on content would proceed in such space, with the only difference being that I would attempt to be a go-between between you too, providing a filter on direct contact, providing my own feedback and hopefully dampening the existing tension between you two a little. I would ask questions, request proposed wording, ask for responses and hopefully slowly hammer out a compromise version. Generally in such a process, I would attempt to stay as neutral as possible, and that would remain so in this instance, though I must caution that, given the wildly different versions of the content I saw presented in the ANI, I cannot guarantee that I will not have to express a strong opinion or two of my own regarding certain details that will have to be omitted per our BLP guidelines and other relevant policies. Nevertheless, my emphasis would be on trying to arrive at a solution that leaves you both satisfied with the resolution.

Of course, all of this presumes you both continue to have some degree of confidence in how I have evaluated the situation to date, such that you would see some potential benefit from my efforts to attempt to bridge the gap between you two. And it must be reiterated that this is essentially what DRN attempts to do, so their is an argument to be made for just going with the already requested process. However, if you would like my assistance in this regard, I am happy to dedicate some time to making the attempt. And insofar as my advice/assistance has been sought here, this would seem to be the best (and indeed arguably the only) method by which I can attempt to help resolve the dispute, under the present circumstances. Please let me know how you each feel about such a process at your convenience. Regardless, I wish you both the best of luck both generally and with respect to untangling the present issues. Lazer-kitty, as before, apologies for the voluminous post. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I should have double-checked the DRN filing again immediately before responding here. It seems the discussion has now found a moderator there. I'm certainly not keen to step on Clone Commando Sev's toes over this, so while I'm not expressly revoking my offer to help here if I can be of assistance, do consider workshopping the matter with him if you both are amenable. But do remember, whatever the result arrived at there, you must get the consensus of the other editors previously involved in trying to find a consensus version to the disputed topic: the two of you are the only listed parties to the dispute and, looking at the talk page, I'm not sure that is 100% accurate. The NPOV/N also probably should have been mentioned in the filing, particularly as Robert raised concerns about forum shopping, and the input of the editors weighing-in there has also, I believe, contributed to the current wording. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I must say this: you’re just like an angel. Sorry again for consuming you time with this. And yes, it would be nice to have you mediating this dispute. I agree that a middle ground solution is perfectly achievable.

Lazer-Kitty has shut down the DR request again, and El_C has been made aware of that, since they were the one who asked us to solve this dispute at DRN. I also asked El_C if I am forbidden to discuss this matter. I’m waiting for an answer (but I’m not sure if they’ll ever respond).

Anyhow, I acknowledge that I’m guilty of inflammatory rhetoric and I’m willing to put that aside, and leave the past behind too (I told LK this already).

LK is guilty of that as well. For instance, at the ANI and DRN they said that I was harassing [sic.] them on talk pages and demanding [sic.] my preferred version to be restored, but this is what I actually wrote on the talk page: let’s see if you’re really committed to making concessions, and reaching consensus. Why don’t you start by restoring the version Bever (and others) considers “better readable and comprehensible” and then making the changes you want to make from there?. That was actually a request (a challenge maybe), not a “demand”, much less harassment.

I'm ok with Snow’s proposal, and I hope LK will give peace a chance. I trust u both to write a fair "compromise-version", I can give you nonbinding feedback on the process, as I said before, LK will have the last word and they can fix any perceived bias as they please. My only requests are these: preserve the overall writing style of version A and present full quotations (not deceivingly cropped and framed ones). Avoid guessing Stallman’s intentions by saying things like “Stallman defended Minsky” or “Stallman rationalized rape” etc (claims attributed to reliable sources are acceptable but discouraged [since most RS’s avoided making such claims]). That’s all. Peace ✌ — Daveout ^(talk) 20:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveout: After your latest DRN shenanigans I have zero interest in discussing this with you any further. I would ask that you please stop commenting on my talk page. If you want to discuss something with Snow, do it on their talk page. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lazer-kitty: I'm gonna read your comment above as foreclosing any present interest in the proposed mediation, until you tell me otherwise. But if I misconstrue your position or you change your mind, you can always ping me to the article talk page. Under the circumstances, I'm afraid this is the best I can offer by way of assistance. I wish you both luck in finding a constructive resolution here, regardless. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Arsenal F.C. players, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arthur Brown, Eddie Kelly and Dennis Evans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PRTPittsburghLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lazer-kitty. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of McLaren road cars, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]