User talk:DeCausa/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

v ₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (More directly: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III ₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Leo Frank article

Hi. I'd made some edits to the Leo Frank article recently and got a notification that they were reverted. Could you explain the reason for their reversion? I'd meant for the edits to clarify that he was kidnapped from jail to be lynched, to add some archive url's, and to clarify that the Columbia State was being sarcastic (which is kinda alluded to by the clause about them being opposed to the lynching but I had to re-read it once or twice to feel sure that they were being sarcastic because, well, Poe's Law).

I thought these were relatively harmless copy editing and maintenance. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean this edit? I couldn't match the edit to the edit summary. The diff only showed the removal of the dates from the short description and a lot of white space changes. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh. Holy moly. I didn't realize that I'd removed the date from the short description. I'd been meaning to edit the article while on my phone (but it was really cumbersome). So I copied the source code, made some edits, emailed them to myself, and posted once I got home. I didn't realize that in between my copying of the code and posting that someone else had made an edit lol.

The removal of the white spaces and date were unintentional. The stuff I'd meant to put in were in the lead paragraph and the sources listed in the lead. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I not exactly sure how you've done it, but whatever changes you made to the lead aren't showing up in the diff. So I can't actually tell what you've added or changed. I don't know of it's something to do with copying the lead and reposting it with the changes. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Really? When I looked at the differences page, it showed my additions and edits in the lead paragraph pretty clearly. Are you on a phone? (****edit: Ohhh, I see now. I use the wikiEdDiff gadget which highlighted the changes. But looking at it from a default user, it looks like a bunch of mumbo jumbo).

I could also just add my edits back in from scratch so I don't accidentally remove the date or all those white spaces. So then the edit could be assessed purely on its own merits. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Government and politics" lead: United Kingdom

Hello, I noticed you reverted my recent contributions to the lead of the "Government and politics" section of the UK article. My contributions were supported by the source material; I was merely rewording sentences contributed by other authors to improve structure and fluidity. I was actually the person that fleshed out the lead to begin with and detail the reserve powers of the Crown, with all pertinent citations. I'd be happy to discuss this further if you are so inclined. Mcvayn (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Firstly, it would have been better to have posted this at the article talk page. secondly, there were a few problems with your changes. Firstly, changing monarch to sovereign would require consensus. For a global audience where a substantial proportion of the readership has English as a second language monarch has greater clarity. but, in addition, it is unclear what advantage there is in changing it. The next issue is that where you added text the existing citation attached to the sentence doesn't appear to support it. the last issue is that some of the changes were on the basis that replacing 'z' with 's' was to conform with British spelling. But that is incorrect - see Oxford spelling. Overall, it did not appear your changes were an improvement. DeCausa (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted

Hi. I still have not received an answer about why my message is reverted per WP:TPO. I didn't change a single letter of what I wrote earlier. I would be glad if you explain. Kyzagan (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. My mistake. This diff made it look as though there were changes because of the highlighting. But the highlighting in thediff doesn't seem to be indicating changes for some reason. DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

about Parsis in india

It is necessary to mention and not unnecessary, especially for better understanding And about the deleted article without an authentic and self-made source that was on the page of a German newspaper, is it here, newspapers and magazines and their words, or materials with scientific and historical accuracy with authentic documents. Parmin khosravi (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

SmallCat dispute case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I saw u reverted some of my edits. You are right. I edited some of their contents. Plus, all the contests that u removed, though brought from other articles, are my own additions (in their source articles too) actually. Maybe I am not aware of some guidelines too. If so, please make me aware. I will be glad to discuss with you about how to readd the information there without having any problem. Haoreima (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia on attribution. Other issues were: (1) the opening on the paragraph on Loyumba Shinyen was in the same format as the opening of an article. It needs to be adapted. (2) Generally, there was too much detail for relatively obscure topics for this article. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

British Raj

Hi, I’d just like to say I appreciate you advocating for not neglecting British Burma as part of British India / the Raj. I hope that we can reach a consensus with the other editor, Fowler. MichaelDMelvin23 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You reverted my edit to the “Short Description” on this article and said that it was “better” before.

Whether or not Leo Frank was convicted “wrongfully” is a matter of opinion and significant controversy. I have created a topic in the Talk section of the article to discuss this further. The current wording is opinionated and inaccurate. Livius Plinius (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not any sort of controversy among reliable sources. That frothing-at-the-mouth anti-semitic websites find it controversial is irrelevant. Read WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus of opinion is still a matter of opinion. Legal facts are what have been proclaimed as true by a court of law.

It may be factual to say, ”Leo Frank is widely considered to have been wrongly convicted,” but what is factual about that statement is that such an opinion is widely held– not the opinion itself. The opinion does not become a fact simply because many people hold it. Only the justice system can objectively declare that Leo Frank's conviction was wrongful or factually incorrect.

In no objective, definitive way can you simply say that Frank was “wrongly convicted,” when his conviction has never been overturned despite a century of legal challenges which included review by the Supreme Court. Livius Plinius (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Nonsenses. We do all the time. Frank isn't going to appeal - we base our statements on WP:RS and WP:DUE. You're wasting your time unless you spend some time understanding Wikipedia policy. And now you're wasting my time. I don't generally tell people not to post on my talk page (however pointless there messages are) but I won't bother replying to any more of your ill-informed opinions here. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Groups continue to press for Leo Frank's exoneration within the legal system, but they have not prevailed.

You don't seem to understand that saying something like, “Leo Frank is widely considered to have been wrongly convicted,” is not the same as saying, “Leo Frank was wrongly convicted.”

The former may be factual, the latter has not been established in any court of law, and is simply not a factual statement. It is a matter of opinion and cannot be presented as a fact even if many people hold that opinion. Livius Plinius (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Just saw your edit to the ANI section. I didn't realise it had posted out of order. I used the reply button so thought it was still be in order so it was unintentional on my part. I'll keep an eye out when I reply to other submissions. Apache287 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI, 4 Sep 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kaalakaa (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:REDACT concern

I didn't make any significant change in my comments, I merely added links and sources to what I've written a while ago to avoid the repeated accusation of being using my own interpretation of primary sources. This will actually help the editors to review my comments and give it more creditability. Jopharocen (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't add links and sources that weren't previously there. It chages the context of any replies - which you actually acknowledge: "to avoid the repeated accusation of being using my own interpretation of primary sources". Your trying to strengthen your position in light of subsequent replies. You can't do that. The most you should do is minor formatting or typos - but even then don't do it too much as it will aggravate. DeCausa (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I was about to note that in a new reply that I've added links for whoever looking for references for my previous comments so that everybody be aware of it, but I was still working on it before they were reverted. I could have started new comments with those sources but it would have prolonged the discussion with topics already discussed. Jopharocen (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DeCausa. Thank you for your work on Antonio de Caldonazzo. User:Tails Wx, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work on the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tails Wx 12:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: Thanks very much! DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire Featured article review

I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendly hello

Hello, how are you? I'm just dropping in because we edit some of the same pages, and I find it's good to understand a fellow editor beyond 'that person who keeps disagreeing with me'. Are you working on anything interesting at the moment? Best wishes, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I'm quite busy in real life at the moment so I haven't been devoting much time to WP lately. I had been delving into a number of Welsh history articles - there's quite a lot of poor quality sourcing and WP:OR there. But I have quite a major piece of work in mind on an aspect of Persian mythology literature but I need quite a bit of spare time to tackle it. Maybe over Christmas. I've pinged a few times at King of Wales and I see you've commented there. I'll take a look at that. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Solomonic Dynasty

Go visit Japan's monarchy page, you will see the exact thing, it is generally agreed to add the empathizing mark () to distinct between legend which is not proved to historical fact as you pointed, the Japanese page has done it, i will do it: if you edit or revert it back it won't help anything but start a uncalled for edit conflict which is not necessary, i will want to to go and read the Japanese monarch page and come back to me CtasACT (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant see WP:OTHERCONTENT. In any case it was only added to the Japan article in the last few days - it's gone now. DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Amhara people page

Hi, How come it was allowed to delete from the Wikipedia page of the Amhara about Amharas being heirs/descendants of the Aksum empire? Amhara historical heritage with Aksum is well backed yet an Arabic user name on Wikipedia (he now changed it to English his username is Socialwave597) completely removed everything without talking with anyone. It’s not the first time that he do such thing. 2A00:A041:E19A:2600:9D67:A7C:3AB2:BC63 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not an article I watch. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. What is that supposed to mean? Then who is watching it? Anyone can do what the hell they want? 2A00:A041:E19A:2600:816F:6687:EF54:CD17 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have never edited Amhara people and don't have any interest in it. I don't know why you are posting on my talk page about it. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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! OrionNimrod (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkey

If you were objecting to the percentages, why did you do a full revert here [1], deleting the reliably sourced information in footnotes? Bogazicili (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I object to the addition of unnecessary pointless clutter, not the percentages. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You are making edits not even aware of what you are changing? Did you see the footnotes? Bogazicili (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yesw, they are crap. DeCausa (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are they "crap"? Bogazicili (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter. DeCausa (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Such a weird reasoning. Are you being disruptive on purpose? Bogazicili (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, you have an agenda that you are driving through. I genuinely couldn't care less either way - i'm well used to these local political arguments on WP that I have no direct interest in. But what when it starts interfering in reader usability I do care. You won't have any idea what I'm talking about. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My agenda is improving the article to GA and then to FA. Look up what reader usability is. Bogazicili (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah right. DeCausa (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

Bogazicili (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Bhai

Jai shri Ram જય શ્રી રામ (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Parmesan#Parmesan vs. Parmigiano-Reggiano

Hi, in this discussion, so as not to create further misunderstandings, is it possible to change the title of the question? (spelled without dash, https://www.parmigianoreggiano.com/it/). JacktheBrown (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That can be discussed in the thread. There's no need to alter other editors' posts per WP:TPO. The editor who originally posted that may have a pov that it should have a dash and that is their prerogative. DeCausa (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: all right, thank you very much! JacktheBrown (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent reversions at "Legal System of Saudi Arabia"

You cite "unfamiliar terms". Are we "dumbing down" for the general population, as have done the newspapers? Why oppose a more accurate term if it is appropriate? Perhaps the average American dummies will refer to the dictionary (or Wiktionary), and be the better for it. Just curious. 144.121.24.154 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Resisting changing from "male Polygamy" to "polygyny" is dumbing down! We have a global audience of one billion views per day. That article could be read by a teenager in Kenya whose 3rd language is English one day and a professor in Massachusetts the next day. If you're not willing to "dumb down" for the "general population" then you need to find a different hobby than Wikipedia. Mind you, I also wouldn't describe pointlessly expanding text without adding meaning (which is how I would describe the verbosity of some of your aditions)) as struggling against "dumbing down". But if you stay you need to follow our policies - that includes not adding text that is unsupported by the existing citation. That's a breach of WP:V as explained in WP:HIJACK. In future, if you have any points to make on edits on anrticle do so on the article talk page please. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still, however, oppose the notion that a writer within any context other than children's literature (I would venture to suggest that Wikipedia is for adult consumption by dint of its inherent nature...perhaps a "Kids Wiki" is called for?) should attempt to tailor his writing to his audience, but rather should hope of improving the minds of his audience by encouraging expansion of syntactic awareness and vocabulary. the reader should raise himself to the level of the literature, rather than the writer lowering himself to the level of a reader which he might imagine. I only contacted you directly, on your own talk page, because I am only interested in your own opinions as they pertain to this specific instance; I have no intent to clutter your personal space. Your complaint about the desirability of a reference is valid. my defense would be that the suggestion is entirely obvious. Thanks for the brief engagement, and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.24.154 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

AE is concluded

But, why on earth you never told me that I am disruptive back then on the TP - how do you know that I would not be more careful if you, say, told me, Santasa you are disruptive too? I mean, it's not like you held back when it came to telling that to Sorabino, nor did you 100% free of uncommon way of discussing - I was a bit stunned by yours all caps uncivil shouting at Sorabino. I understood you throwing me under the bus in AE as a testament to your complete neutrality, and here's the deal: I will not participate in further processes, I will exclude myself completely, if you (or @Joy) are going to start whatever is concluded by closing admin in AE. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to "coach" you. You behaved badly on the talk page, that's your problem. I doubt I will be involved in the article again - I really don't care what you or Joy do. I have no interest. "throwing you under the bus" "testament to your complete neutrality" Wtf? I am neutral as far as you are concerned. I have no knowledge of who you are. I'm not some sort of "ally" of yours, if that's what you were thinking. DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say to "coach me" I said you never complained about my discussion, just as you complained about Sorabino's - I don't see the difference exactly because we indeed aren't allies (that's your projection), while you ended screaming at Sorabino you could have said to me something. Well, you started your statement in AE by assuring everyone something everyone should assume without assurance from you; that you are neutral completely and how you came incidentally into TP, followed by equating me to Sorabino in AE - you don't think that you are actually putting me in disadvantage because you never told me what you have said to him. Next time or whenever you think both are equally disruptive, warn also those editors with whom you agree in the discussion, they may listen, not only those with whom you disagree - don't use them as collateral. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep your gibberish to yourself. Don't post here again. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

About Queen Elizabeth

The Queen is dead and it seems the Commonwealth title is no longer used for her it seems we need to give infobox that he was finished as head of the Commonwealth I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Letby page

I did not edit at all for a couple of weeks. When I came back, that section was there. I am inclined to agree with your assessment - it appears to be repeating a lot of stuff we kept out of the article but that could be found on certain websites, and even though the situation has changed (in that mainstream media are repeating some of this), it hasn't changed enough to set out the whole stall of doubts. But... it needs someone who doesn't have an obvious axe to grind to say something. If you turn your back on the article, it will be a lot harder to make the case for paring things back. And my own thoughts are we should be pruning that article a lot. I would hope you would reconsider removing from your watchlist, as your input would be valuable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm increasingly finding resisting RGW editing too much like hard work. This is is supposed to be a hobby...for enjoyment. That doesn't feel like it. I'll think further though. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Thanks for thinking on it. Take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, thanks for your words - realised that my original reply looks churlish without saying that! DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry my ping dragged you back unwillingly. I thought it would be worse not to ping and risk the previous outcome being changed without you knowing, but maybe not. I weary too; feels like my main contribution to that article has been reverting "convicted of" insertions, with a per-RFC summary. The article's now under 1RR which may help. Anyway, please enjoy your editing; I remain glad to see you wherever we chance to meet and to whatever extent we agree or disagree. NebY (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries - nothing wrong with the ping of course. It was my choice to respond! Thanks for the comment and always glad to see you around. DeCausa (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN

As in John's case, I don't know why you're pursuing a personal feud. It would be useful for you to provide diffs of whatever personal slight you perceived in the past that has put you on this course. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What "personal feud"? I'm not aware of any personal slight. As far as I know we've had only cordial relations unless you can find something to the contrary that I can't remember. Is your mindset such that the only possible explanation of criticism of you is that it is because of a "personal feud'? Do you exclude all possibility that you might be at fault, objectively? DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be grateful if in future you avoided as far as possible any contact, reply or mention of me anywhere on wikipedia. I will attempt to reciprocate. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I will reply to you or mention you anywhere on Wikipedia as I see fit and would never comply with such a prima donna-ish request. I won't post on your user talk page though unless I ever need to post a noticeboard notification.

This all sounds just a little familiar. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

House of Romanov- Possible Vandalism/ Edit Warring

Hello, I just realized that Just kidding me? (talk) keeps editing the House of Romanov page relying on original research and not using reliable sources. They seem to want to include the name of an alleged Romanov descendant unattested elsewhere, also I see that they keep deleting the edits of anyone who challenges their position. They included the same information on the page of Grand Duke Nicholas Konstantinovich. Would you be so kind as to let an admin know so the situation can be fixed please? This page appears to be constantly vandalized by people who wish to support one disputed claimant to the head of the house over the other... Thank you. Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia - see WP:VANDAL. What you describe isn't vandalism and saying an edit is vandalism when it isn't is considered a personal attack for which you can be sanctioned. Secondly, what you describe seems to be a content dispute. Admins won't involve themselves as admins in a content dispute - they certainly can't "fix" it. You should be raising this and resolving the dispute on the article talk page. I don't know why both of you are posting on my talk page about this - I'm not involved. Thirdly, if you believe the other editor has breached our behavioural policies (you need to identify which one) you should ask for admin intervention at WP:ANI. If you believe there has been edit-warring (see WP:EW for the meaning of that) you should make a complaint at WP:AN3. I'm not sure why you would think I would raise it with an admin for you. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)