User talk:Sdrqaz

Filing cabinet

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

I made requests in the previous month in the hopes of anyone addressing my statements, to say the least. However, those requests, including swimming (disambiguation), have been discarded with no input from admins due to a user who persistently insists that I am an affiliate of a telly-vandal who appears to live in the same range as I am. These were my reasons for unprotection.102.156.121.163 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given what happened the last time I answered your requests at RfPP (the lack of disruption afterwards suggests that you aren't asking for the articles to be unprotected so that you can disrupt them), I will take you at your word that you aren't them. This is also taking the LTA page into account. Unprotected, given the general lack of activity and disruption (FYI: Favonian and Ohnoitsjamie). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with Favonian that we shouldn't be wasting our time processing requests from a likely sock, but on the other hand I don't particularly care whether or not swimming is protected at this time. If this user starts filling up RFPP again with pointless requests I will likely block them however. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly typing, that is what I planned to do in the future, but compiling the pages in one edit like this one, nonetheless excluding media-related articles given the fact that the LTA case in my region being prevalent. But seriously, I was making requests mainly because of two reasons: 1)Page protector is inactive, and 2)Page is protected long enough (provided that it doesn't have a lengthy list of protection history). Why are you considering my case "pointless"? If you believe they are "pointless", then why did you accept my request for unprotecting pool (cue sports) in the first place?102.156.121.163 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: These requests are pretty valid from a policy point of view and are not what I would call pointless (I could get that perspective if they were requesting semi-protection removals for redirects, but these are "live" pages that have very little need for continued protection). I hope that the link between the LTA and these IPs isn't just being made because they're from Tunisia, given that this IP doesn't fit into the behavioural clues listed at the LTA page regarding lack of communication. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only "lacking communication skills", but also persistent reverts. Users might have mistaken me an LTA user by accounting my reverts to this edit as well as this edit. I am currently decreasing my activity for a while, as a means of accepting the wp:so, provided that one of my ranges is meant to be blocked for 3 months.

I find out that negotiating issues with experienced editors interesting. However, there is one thing I intend to avoid but also uncertain if I am ever commiting it (if it is, I am sorry to type this) and that is: wp:hounding. I understand such behaviour leads to serious consequences/sanctions, but how can anyone tell if I am ever commiting it? (see also user talk:el C)102.156.121.163 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realized you did not remove or shorten protection from one of the pages. Since I have made that request again at user talk:lectonar, I am unlikely that I would request that again given that he explained why indefinite protection is still necessary, albeit being protected for over five years.102.156.121.163 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is about the Big Brother articles. I don't really agree with that (I'm biased, but I think that my solution of introducing time limits for the Nickelodeon awards worked out all right), but I'll defer to him on this. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that you down-protected almost all of them from semi to pending (actually that's also my take, downgrade to pending with time-limit, to evaluate the effect of it) whereas the Big brother ones are only pending changes protected to start with, afaics, and are still experiencing disruption on a lower level. Lectonar (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but when there are on average only two reverted edits by non-autoconfirmed users in the past year, the need for continued protection is not as pronounced. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the 2024 edition is experiencing dubious edits, albeit once protected for a week, earlier this month. What can you do?102.159.182.25 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary that protection will be interpreted as an endorsement of a side in the only/first argument (and it should not be interpreted as such), but will place 2024 Kids' Choice Awards under pending changes for two weeks. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption returned, including from another address which starts with those same numbers as I am, unrelated to me. Per previous editions' protection history, could you consider a month long protection?102.158.132.236 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected for a week, given that this event is occurring in a couple of hours and interest should die down soon.

@Ohnoitsjamie: I see that you've blocked this IP despite my comment above. Your block was for block evasion, while saying that they should create an account. Would you block those accounts for block evasion too? And how does the behavior of this account fulfil the behavioral tells linked above? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been following this thread since June, but I blocked that IP because they just hit a filter hitting a filter attempting to edit TV-related aritcles, which is exactly what the filter is intended for. If you want to unblock them, be my guest, but I suspect they are the user the block is intended for. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I asked you in June how this user's behavior meets the behavior listed at the LTA page (especially regarding communication) and you didn't respond. This IP seems to be trying to revert the LTA (example, removing a YouTube source) and you blocked them from doing so (both literally and through the filter), which seems counter-productive. I will unblock shortly. I understand that it may be frustrating that there seems to be two people on the same range editing in TV-related areas, making collateral damage difficult to avoid, but the block seems very much avoidable. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the behavior isn't identical, it's certainly plausible for the LTA to adopt different behavior. In any case, the filter is going to prevent anons in that range from editing a large swath of TV articles, so I'm not too worried about it either way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you remove protection from Shuhada' Davitt?102.159.179.87 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for doing so? Given that it is a redirect, the "need" to edit it is very low. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Better Off Dead? 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! ltbdl (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but what exactly did your remove from my user page?? RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RegierungDavidlands1852. I removed some personal information from your user page, including information about your location. The material was suppressed, meaning that the information was removed from public view, with administrators also unable to access it (only members of the Oversight team can).

This was done to prevent possible harassment; you may find this useful. As there is still some personal information on your user page, you may want to remove some of that too after reading the link above. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about revision deletions, can you take a closer look at special:history/One Montgomery Tower and decide for yourself which revisions and/or WP:ESes ought to or should not have been deleted?41.62.103.29 (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A bit tricky because although most of the deletions were within policy, I'm not sure I would have carried them out. I've deleted an edit summary and deleted two revisions for consistency, as well as restoring an edit summary. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your oppose at ARCA, but I do respect that you were willing to speak your mind in the face of strong opposition. That is an excellent quality in an arbitrator. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just Step Sideways. I promised the Community that I would do that, even if it makes work more difficult/tiring sometimes. Thank you for your kind words. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdrqaz, I work for Brookfield Properties. I see that you are a member of WP:WREQ - would you mind taking a quick look at an edit request I posted recently? See Talk:Brookfield Properties#Updates to Brookfield Properties locations. Thanks for your help, Claudiailagan (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article about 'Ravinder Kumar.' There wasn't any article there before, just some internal links that I was keeping. You deleted that as well. Please restore it as it was. I want to reach people with the best quality. The article I am writing is about a social worker who I have seen helping people. Shouldn't we write about such people?

please reply RivRAVINDER (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RivRAVINDER. The page that I deleted for clear promotion, Draft:Ravinder Kumar - rivravinder ( Social Worker and Social Media manager), was written by Ravinderkuther. Are you using more than one account? If so, please only use one and write on your user page your connection with the other account.

The draft called Kumar an "SEO Expert" twice and said that he was "dedicated", "mak[ing] significant contributions to his community", and "has empowered many to stand up for themselves". Wikipedia is not the place to promote anyone (or anything); while there are a lot of good people worth writing about, Wikipedia articles need to be about people/things that are notable (that usually means having multiple independent reliable sources writing about the subject). If Ravinder does not have that, then maybe Wikipedia is not the right place to write about him.

If you are referring to the contents of the page you wrote at Ravinder Kumar (not a draft), you can view it at the page history. However, since there are other people with the same name, please continue working on the draft at Draft:Ravinder Kumar ( Social Worker and Priest Shri Vaishno Devi ). Please remember my advice above: please do not use any sources from LinkedIn or Medium as they are not independent or reliable. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw that you closed the article Harrison Butker to edits. Another editor has been repeatedly attempting to force through what is, in my opinion, a POV phrase into the aforementioned article. While I do think the article needed temporary protection, I think you may have made it excessively stringent. In addition, the version that is now sealed is that which was pushed by the other editor. They have come extremely close to violating the "three-revert" rule. That editor has also neglected to ever make any statement on the "talk" page in defense of their changes. Hours ago, they added a statement there which I removed due to it being needlessly hostile, and bordering on personal attacks against me. I would be happy to state my objections on said "talk" page to their POV edits. If possible, could the protection be lifted, or else the section be changed back to the previous consensus? As it is now, their POV changes are locked in. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TanRabbitry. You have made seven reverts on this issue in the last two weeks, which seems like edit-warring to me. I am therefore not going to restore your preferred version when there has been no actual discussion on this topic at Talk:Harrison Butker apart from your response to an edit request.

Given your recent edit to Pro-choice and pro-life, you are probably aware that your preferred term ('pro-life') is controversial and some reliable sources have stopped using it. Based on the current location of Anti-abortion movements, I am not thoroughly convinced that Whasha's preferred term ('anti-abortion') is the POV phrase in this dispute. You (and other users in this dispute) should therefore try to come to a consensus on this issue on the talk page, possibly asking for greater input at the neutrality noticeboard or through a request for comment. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

It is not my understanding that returning an article to its previously accepted status quo from sudden and controversial changes made without even an attempt at consensus constitute "edit warring." The other editor had those two weeks in which to state their case and gain consensus and yet made no such attempt. I must therefore, strongly disagree with said controversial changes being made unchangeable for a month. As a compromise, perhaps you could change the two phrases to something truly neutral, or even remove the section entirely for the moment? Why should the other editor even bother to state their case on the "talk" page, considering that they appear (at least for now) to have won the debate without actually making an argument?

I am aware of the controversial nature of this terminology, however we do not necessarily follow other organizations' guides. A principal portion of my position is consistency with other biographical articles. I am unaware of other articles that describe the subjects as "in favor of abortion," or "not supportive of abortion." Rather, they generally use the self-styled terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

I hope that you may consider some form of a compromise in this situation. I do think that it is up to the other editor to make an argument considering they are the one who is wanting to change the article's current (or rather, recent) wording. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TanRabbitry, returning an article to its previously accepted status quo from sudden and controversial changes made without even an attempt at consensus is not an exception under the edit-warring policy (this does not come under point #7).

With regards to your previously accepted status quo, silence is a weak form of consensus. You can presume that there is a consensus for something if nobody objects, but once people start objecting, it evaporates. Based on my look through the history, the "Pro-life advocacy" heading was inserted on 15 May, but was changed 12 hours later to "Anti-abortion advocacy". There have been back-and-forth reverts on that topic in May, July, and August (with you participating in many of those reverts). When faced with such a situation, I think that it's safe to assume that there is no consensus for that heading.

It unfortunately isn't my role to come up with a neutral phrase that isn't 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion'; arguments here about whether we should use other non-Wikipedia style guides should be put on the talk page. I would urge you (as above) to come to some sort of consensus on this issue. Regarding Why should the other editor even bother to state their case on the "talk" page, the other editor has come to discuss the issue as you've noted above. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. The reason that I considered it a consensus is that several months ago, I and many other editors went over nearly every line in that section. We debated numerous portions and that section certainly came up. I would note that I don't consider a non-argument complete with personal attacks to count as a discussion. I have asked them to remove their attacks and actually make an argument, but so far they have done neither. They have instead accused me of "pestering" them. I hope they change their tune, but I don't know if they will. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz

O.K., editor Whasha just mentioned me on a noticeboard without notifying me. It specifically says you must do so at the top of the article in bold, bright red text and they didn't. What now? TanRabbitry (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While people should notify others when reporting them at noticeboards, it is not an offence to miss that out unless it's being done on purpose – reasons for that occurring may be banner blindness or simple carelessness/forgetfulness. It frequently occurs (especially when people are unfamiliar with starting reports) and I think that I did so before when I was a newer editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Considering the editors behavior elsewhere, I am suspicious that it wasn't intentional, but without direct evidence, I guess I can't assume that. You would think they would have said something about not knowing to do so, though.

Another issue has cone up. The editor in question apparently combed through the "talk" page history. They re-added old portions of long discussions that I had previously removed. The have implied I did so dishonestly. The real story is that several months ago, I and other editors discussed the page at length, arguing over everything from what counts as balance to what constitutes a standing ovation. The sections are now, old, outdated and need to be removed. It is twenty-eight thousand-odd words that are mostly irrelevant now. Additionally, the section contained a false accusation against me (for which the editor, who had made a mistake, apologized) and a long expression of anger by an otherwise productive editor who delved into a childish fit, including multiple obscenities. Most importantly, toward the end of one discussion, another editor said we were finished, I said I would remove the section after a period and no one objected.

Editor Whasha has restored these sections again. They seem to think Wikipedia is a forum or social media. I don't think nearly thirty-thousand words cluttering the page is necessary. They think otherwise. Wouldn't it be the perogative of an editor who was actually involved in the discussion to question the removal? Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was informed that the discussions should be archived, rather than deleted. I didn't think theses were important enough, but apparently they are. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Better Off Dead?, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a reviewer did not expect a documentary on assisted suicide to be so funny? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Better Off Dead?. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Better Off Dead?), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,262 views (760.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]