User talk:Coastside

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eddie Rocket's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works correctly now. Give it a try, and come back to the templates wikiproject if it doesn't, and we'll see if someone smarter than me can figure it out. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 01:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work! Nice job. Coastside (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your Third Opinion. I've replied here --92.118.252.49 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I posted a reply with some clarifying questions. Regards. Coastside (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again, I agree with you and have provided further info. Best wishes. --92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I agree with your suggestion. There is consensus on my part. All the best.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Many thanks for your assistance and level of professionalism. 92.118.252.49 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Coastside (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just a quick question: am I right to assume that it needs to be you who is going to make the additions to the article? I can't anyway because it's semi-protected.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i don't recall if the ship is shown first, or the alien, but your note reads better. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the movie, but as it reads now it says the two events are happening at the same time anyway. Coastside (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's all we are trying to say here so all good. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive reverted a couple of your many changes to the Go article, with explanations in the summaries. It seemed you just didn't understand the point of those passages. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding semeais, they certainly are challenging. However, unlike situations of life and death, they are not all that common. Running battles are common, battles where two groups are trying to encircle one another, divide one another, even Furikawari, all appear more often in games than semeais. A semeai is a position where the two groups are each completely surrounded, each only have only one eye, and the situation boils down to a mutual race to capture. Look through your record of games (assuming you keep one) and see how hard it is to find a true semeai relative to occurrences of these other Go concepts. Given that, I felt putting semeais in the third paragraph of the Overview made the topic too prominent. I didn't move the topic out of the Overview altogether, I just moved it to the Detail section, along with terms like "ko", which happen much more often than semeais. The original prominent placement of semeais in the article creates an impression for novice readers that semeais occur more commonly than they actually do.

Regarding restoration of the line "The liberties of groups are countable", your argument is that "this introduces two basic and key concepts - counting and relative liberties." As for introducing the basic concept of counting, clearly everyone reading the article knows how to count. Is it really any different in Go? If you are going to say something specific about counting, such as "many Go professionals will count the score after each move in the end game", then that's saying something meaningful. In the context of the article, the phrase "the group with more liberties" implies counting the liberties, i.e., you need to count them to know which has more liberties. Read it again and ask yourself if you were a newbie to Go, would you really need to be told that liberties are countable to understand? You need to put yourself in the readers shoes and ask what a reader would understand and not just think about what concepts you feel are important to explain. As for "relative liberties", I agree that's an important concept, but the sentence "The liberties of groups are countable" doesn't say anything about relative liberties. Again, it is the phrase "the group with more liberties" that says something about relative liberties.

Finally, regarding your comment that it seemed I "just didn't understand the point of those passages", I would caution you to be careful when leaving comments and messages not to make inferences about what people understand. If you focus on the content of the article and make your point, you'll be more likely to avoid inadvertently offending people.

Coastside (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semeais are more common that you think. For example you regard a ko as more common, but every major ko starts out as something that looks like a semeai. Sekis also - what ends up as a seki began as a semeai. Likewise the entire game is fraught with this struggle to capture or be captured. I respect your view and appreciate your thorough explanation, but I believe that it is a mistake to remove the concept of a capturing race from a basic introduction to go. The best Go introductions Ive read use the semeai to illustrate the basic nature of Go as a competition between relatively different liberties and life shapes.

You wrote: As for introducing the basic concept of counting, clearly everyone reading the article knows how to count. Is it really any different in Go? If you are going to say something specific about counting, such as "many Go professionals will count the score after each move in the end game", then that's saying something meaningful. - This is incorrect IMHO. Remember in my revert comment I indicated that there were two concepts introduced - counting and the idea of relative liberties. Of course everyone knows how to count, but not everyone knows what counting means in the context of Go. And by counting I don't mean counting the score, I mean counting in the context of a semeai - a contest of liberties. Again this is a fundamental concept in Go. As for "relative liberties", I agree that's an important concept, but the sentence "The liberties of groups are countable" doesn't say anything about relative liberties. Again, it is the phrase "the group with more liberties" that says something about relative liberties. - But the issue of countability is essential to understanding relative liberties. And the concept of countability is simple enough to understand. Hence the phrase "liberties are countable" acts as a transition - a simple introduction to a more advanced concept.

I apologise for the comment about not understanding the point of certain passages. I did not mean it as an offense, I was simply stating that these passages have a clear and important purpose. I hope my explanations here clear up the meaning of these passages. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to the third opinion request. If you could please clarify your comments in light of my reply, I won't harass you further. Savidan 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your prior participation in the discussion, it may interest you that the template has been nominated for deletion. Savidan 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is not per WP:AUTO??? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2012; 15:54 (UTC)

Dang. I meant WP:ALSO. Thanks for catching that. Coastside (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any time :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2012; 16:20 (UTC)

Hi, please can you make the changes to this article, as per consensus? Thanks. --92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Coastside (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're a star! --92.118.252.49 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you place a "dubious" tag, you have to discuss it on the talk page. That's why there's a "discuss" link in the tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coastside. I thought you might have a helpful perspective on this: Talk:Jabberwocks w/r/t the deletion of the membership list in the Jabberwocks infobox. Great work building out the article, I just think that particular feature may be unwieldy. Thomas Craven (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Surname}} is in Category:Set index article templates which is in Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates. Since it is not a redirection, it is a disambiguation.

Also, WP:MOSDAB says "Set index article exception was designed to be narrow: for pages that contain links to articles about different topics, please follow this style guide for disambiguation pages"

Therefore IMO {{disambig-cleanup}} is perfectly legal.

Anyway, I raised the issue at Template_talk:Disambiguation_cleanup#Surname lists cleanup, please continue the discussion there. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]. First off, if you'd like to move the dab page, then you have to.. well, move it (not cut-and-paste the content at the target title as it fragments the history of the page). If you're technically prevented from moving it, then you can place a request for somebody else to do it at WP:RMT). But in this case there's also another issue at stake: changing a redirect to an article into a dab page entails a change of primary topic. I don't have any personal opinion on this one, but if you believe there isn't a primary topic, then that would be tied up with renaming Al Shorta SC – as this article's title also applies to most of the other entries on the dab page. If there's no primary topic for "Al Shorta" then there probably isn't one for "Al Shorta FC" and that article would need to be renamed too. – Uanfala (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I appreciate you pointing me to WP:RMT As it covers what I intended to do (an uncontroversial move as per the "Meo (disambiguation)" example there). I was perhaps confused and no doubt somewhat careless with this change. I think I misunderstood the redirect.

Regardless, something is amiss. I thought there was no primary topic because the dab page doesn't indicate there is a primary topic. If Al-Shorta SC is the primary topic, then the dab page should look like this:

Al-Shorta SC is a football club based in Baghdad, Iraq that plays in the Iraqi Premier League.

Al-Shorta may also refer to:

Instead, it is written as if none of the entries are the primary topic. If Al-Shorta SC is not the primary topic, then it doesn't make sense for Al-Shorta to redirect to Al-Shorta SC. Instead it should be the dab page (in which case "Al-Shorta" and "Al-Shorta (disambiguation)" should be switched, which is what I was trying to do). Either way, something isn't right here. Am I wrong?

Coastside (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to reword the dab page. I didn't do this myself when I edited it a few years ago probably because I avoid separating out the primary topic at the top if it's the same type of entity as the other entries. That's just me, and it's true this can be confusing (though I like to think that it's not as confusing to readers as it is to editors). As for whether there is a primary topic or not, I really don't have the background knowledge to judge, but the pageviews [2] seem to strongly support the status quo. – Uanfala (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vested in this. But I'd like to understand, if you think it's the same type of entity as the other entries, then it seems as if you don't think any of them are really the primary topic. And if that's how you see it, why would you want "Al-Shorta" to point to one of them (Al-Shorta SC) instead of pointing to the dab page to disambiguate among them?Coastside (talk)

I do believe the presence of a primary topic is a safe assumption here. Yes, almost all the other articles with this name are also football clubs, but that doesn't prevent one of them from being the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, that makes more sense and I've deleted it. Hut 8.5 07:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what metrics you're using, but none of the name articles I've just fixed could possibly be considered primary. You should not be making name articles the primary topic without a requested move. I will fix them if there's no consensus for it. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: Thanks for the feedback. I'm not doing moves, except in the case of Ohara, where I made a mistake and then requested help. What I did with pages like Rosana is split the list of people out of the dab page into a name page. I think what you're saying is you don't think I should make the name the primary topic when I do that. I'm ok with that, as I can name the page (name) or (surname) or (given name) as appropriate. Please see Qiang where I did that the way you are saying, I think that's what you are suggesting. Also, I noticed you introduced the "type=both" param in the {{given name}} template - helpful to see that, I didn't know about it. For name pages that are primarily surname pages but have some entries that are given names, it would be nice to use {{surname}} but it seems you can only do that with given name, is that right? Unfortunate to have to use {{given name}} instead of {{surname}} for name pages that are primarily surname index articles. Coastside (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Sometimes the name should be primary topic, say if there's only a list of names and an asteroid. But most of the time it makes a lot more sense for a dab page to be at the base term, especially if that was the status quo up to that point. The given name template is just a legacy thing, it puts the article in both relevant categories so it doesn't really cause a problem. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am new to the DR volunteer team and have been perusing a variety of DR cases to get a better handle on how these things are dealt with and also how the moderators successfully (or maybe unsuccessfully) deal with the various issues and personalities involved. I must say, I think you handled this one quite well - I obseve many things to takeaway from this case that I will keep in my personal toolbox for future use. Great job. airuditious (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​@airuditioius Thank you for the postive feedack! I appreciate it. Coastside (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add a comment myself - sorry I blew up the thread by refusing mediation. I suspect this one is more suitable for WP:3O, however. While I'm relatively sure Kvaalen is acting in good faith, that's not enough. Thanks for your efforts. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: No need to apologize. 3PO volunteers at DRN are there to help participants come to a positive resolution. Sometimes it's a successful process and sometimes not. Coastside (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent it matters - in reading all of the discussion - my view was that the editor was not trying to be difficult but was struggling with understanding why the content was OR - I perceived that they felt the information was self-evident and therefore, to their way of thinking, not OR. That said, I do sympathize with Kvaalen because I too had a bit of trouble with OR early on - often asking myself "WHY don't they get that I'm not making this stuff up???". I think OR is one of those things that many intrinsically get right away but others just don't see it that quickly - I for sure was the latter. But hey, we're all human and hopefully we all continue to learn and grow. I hope I do such that I can handle some of these issues with the deft shown here. airuditious (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​@airuditioius Thanks for sharing your additional thoughts on this. Wikipedia can be quite challenging in terms of exposing people to open judgment about their editing, and these kinds of controversies are obviously quite common. For me, it's helpful to see these as opportunities to grow in terms of creating a better world, a better outcome, a better article, etc., and not on winning arguments. It's also helpful to remember that we are all human, we all have a basic need for dignity and respect, and that when we do come together and work collaboratively, the result can be quite astounding, and the journey equally rewarding for all involved. If you are interested in watching an inspring example of how dignity and respect can create a bridge where there appears to be an insurmountable divide, please check out this TED talk. Coastside (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

INCREDIBLE STORY - thank you so much for sharing it with me - really very powerful. So much to take away and to discuss but no, I'm not going to do that here. I understand this is not even close to the appropriate venue for such discussions. But I will say this - you have "payed it forward" so to speak as I plan on sharing this with quite a few people who I believe will be similarly inspired and compelled by Ms. Phelps-Roper - honestly, how can one not be??? Thank you again for sharing. airuditious (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort, I guess... except I'm disappointed you did not appear to understand my argument with Debresser.

Help_talk:Maintenance_template_removal#Wiki_comment

The issue is not the text box. Nobody is questioning the text box. I wrote the text box.

My intention for the wiki comment was to help editors that wonder why there is a non-standard text box. Instead of removing it or questioning it, they can look directly into the talk page archive for the relevant discussion leading up to the creation of the text box.

Debresser did not understand any of this. Did he engage in talk discussion? Did he assume good faith? Did he ask me to explain my edit? No, no, and no.

Instead he reverted me. He refused to discuss on talk. He communicated only through the revert edit summaries.

Then when I wasted a bit of my time to set up a talk discussion for him, he still did nothing to understand my edit. He offered no constructive suggestions whatsoever. He reverted over and over again, and as you (hopefully) read in the discussion, demanded that I proved the need of the comment.

Which as I am sure you understand is preposterous. How can a wiki comment ever be necessary? No, it's all a smokescreen - he doesn't like something, he reverts it, and only the complete waste of the other editor's time is acceptable to him. At no time did he work with me in improving my contribution to reach a mutually agreeable solution.

I am writing this in the hope you will rethink your opinion after considering the above. Rest assured I understand and value your voluntary effort - this will be my one and only message to you should you choose not to engage further.

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you were disappointed with my response. I understand you think the wiki comment was helpful and that the other editor was behaving inappropriately. I would note that the debate you were having consisted almost entirely about comments on one another's behavior. Not very productive. I suggest you read WP:EW including some of the "See also" references. In general, I have found that when you want to jump on someone for their behavior, check yourself, focus on the issue and not the behavior, and be very willing to walk away from discussions that are not helpful. Walking away from an argument that is not meaningful is not admitting you're wrong and not admitting defeat. It's recognizing that you have better things to do with your time.Coastside (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also rewards asocial behavior, where editors can be obstructive with minimal effort while monumentally wasting the other party's time and effort. Yes, I am disappointed. The fact you made no (visible) effort to evaluate our respective behavior makes me conclude 3O is and was the wrong venue (assuming your handling of this case is representative of 3O). I mistakenly assumed the fact 3O was recommended for disputes between only two parties meant extra care would be taken to evaluate each party's actions. I will note for the future to avoid 3O unless my aim is merely to shut down the dispute. Instead I will make sure to remember to report the other party directly to WP:DRN, since at the very least it sends the signal someone finds the behavior unacceptable, and gives hope someone in the future will notice editors that repeatedly get reported. CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:3O process is not meant to address behavior issues. It requires good faith and civility to be successful. Likewise the WP:DRN process is for content disputes only. These venues are not meant to address behavioral issues. For disruptive editing, please read WP:DDE and you may consider 3RR to request administrator involvement if you think that's appropriate. I stand by my opinion that the exchange between the two of you was focused almost entirely on behavior and not on content and was unproductive. Regarding the wiki comment itself, I stand by my opinion that you should delete it - not because it's necessarily wrong to have it there, but because it's unnecessary and it's disputed. I would suggest reading MOS:COMMENT. A constructive debate would center on whether an invisible comment is helpful in alerting editors of an issue vs. whether it clutters the wiki source for other editors. It's a tradeoff. In this case, I think the fact that one editor wanted to delete points to a view that it is considered unhelpful "clutter". Regardless, I didn't see any of MOS:COMMENT being discussed, just two editors unproductively sparring. Coastside (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch but this should be a single nom listing all those terms, not several separate noms. It will be confusing if we don't list them all in one place. Also I suggest pinging WT:MILHIST and WT:ESTONIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for the feedback. I thought about a bulk nom, but the guidance said if not sure then don't do it. Probably should have done so. I will ping WT:MILHIST as you suggest (there is no WT:ESTONIA but I'll look for similar). Coastside (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I am too busy right now to vote delete in all of those, but if you ping me with a list of ones I haven't voted in, I'll do so. PS. Fixed a link to Estonia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Bundled at discussion. Also pinged those project discussion pages as you suggested. Thanks again for guidance. Coastside (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coastside, sorry if I missed it, but did you do a QPQ for your DYK submission? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crum375: No, I haven't done a QPQ, although I'll be happy to do one. The guideline says since I have less than five DYK credits, the nomination is exempt from QPQ. I don't have any DYK credits (this is my frist submission). The reason I nominated the article (and the reason I wrote it) was that I came across this event and saw there was no article on it. It was shocking to me that the largest civil rights event in the 1960s didn't have a Wikipedia article.Coastside (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coastside: Sure, QPQ is not mandatory, and for you even less so if this is your first one, but I was just wondering since I forgot to check it when I promoted it. In any case, I think it would be a good experience for you to do one; you can pull any nomination you want out of the pile and you'll probably enjoy doing it. BTW, your article is excellent – very well researched and written. Thank you for writing it and the DYK nomination. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New York City school boycott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the largest civil rights demonstration of the 1960s took place when more than 450,000 New York City students boycotted school to protest segregation in public schools? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New York City school boycott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, New York City school boycott), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coastside, I have no idea how DRN works. Please help. I can't even figure out the talk page properly. It is way too complicated. Is there any other way of exchanging information such as email? Bmojaddidi (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Bmojaddidi[reply]

I got your message. To be honest, I haven't done anything to my account. I do not know why it shows as deleted. I would still would want to see some correction done on the pages related to the Greater Khorasan or as we Persians call it "Ancient Khorasan." Somebody is systematically changing the most important information in Persian related sites.

For example on Al-biruni page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Biruni ) his nationality is listed as Iranian. He was born in Biruni but lived and died in Ghazni during the Ghaznavid dynasty. How is he Iranian? In a few more pages there is a mention of Greater Iran. There was no such thing as Greater Iran. Greater Persia may be more acceptable.

Or the information regarding the Persians (Persian nationals) which also states they were ancient Iranians.

By far the agreed information regarding Persians is that they first lived in and around Oxus River (Amu Darya) such as Balkh, Badakhshan, Takhar, and eventually emigrated to other parts of the Asia.

Like I said somebody is systematically trying to wipe the actual ancient Persians and make everything look and be from Iran that became Iran in 1979 or something.

Those aforementioned pages and most other ones need some proper correction that does not violate the rule and history of Tajiks (Afghan and Tajikistan Persians) who are actually the ancient Persians/ Parsis. Because Balkh province of Afghanistan is where it all started for Persians.

All the edit I have been doing keep on reverting back to the other information.

At the meantime I am trying to find books that are not biased and make everything iranianized. Thank you. Bmojaddidi (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Bmojaddidi[reply]

@Bmojaddidi: To reply to someone specifically use {{reply|username}}. For me that would be {{reply|Coastside}}. You place that tag before the message on a talk page. In this case, you edit my talk page (or yours) and add that tag to notify me. I did this for you by adding {{Re|Bmojaddidi}} before my message. To get help how to edit on Wikipedia, you can post questions at the Help desk or read some introduction info at Help. For disputes, you should read WP:Dispute resolution. For your particular dispute, I suggest you engage further with other editors on the talk page of the article. You can solicit opinions of other editors using WP:RFC but in general that is something to do only after significant effort has been made to negotiate a resolution on the article talk page. I hope that helps. Coastside (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coastside,

Thank you for creating List of plants known as laurel.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:

I added a footnote pointing to the linked articles for additional common names and removed the removed the tag you added.

As per WP:LISTVERIFY, inclusion in this list qualifies as "obviously appropriate material". The common name is verifiable in the linked article, and the name itself justifies inclusion in the list (by definition).

Please also note the category Set indices on plant common names includes many similar list articles, and they generally are unsourced except for the fact that the listed articles mention the common name. For example, List of plants known as nettle is similarly unsourced.

Coastside (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Speed skating (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:TPO, which does not supersede Wikipedia:Civility#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. Specifically, Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling. That is as clear a trolling comment as could be possible: unprovoked, no contribution to the discussion, meant solely to annoy. I have removed it again. If you reinstate it, I will take the matter to an admin.

I have a certain amount of forbearance for Lord Such & Such's lack of discussion capacity, since they are a relatively new editor, but I can really do without misguided if well-meaning backseat condoning from others. It looks as if we are closing in on a usable consensus, so let's please stick to that without further active enabling of kindergarten behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I know you said you're aware, but WP:TPO says:

"Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil"

To say his comment, which wasn't even explicitly directed at you, was "trolling" and went beyond mere incivility is not defensible. Most reasonable people, including me, probably see him as rather annoying, but to say his comment is "as clear a trolling comment as could be possible" is beyond hyperbole. Most readers wouldn't even have picked up on the fact that his comment was even directed at you. Incivility is not trolling, and you shouldn't have removed his edit. By admitting he got under your skin, you are actually encouraging him. Coastside (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...so trolling is fine as long as you manage to couch it in a quote box? Nope. Inserting comments meant purely to annoy into the middle of discussions is trolling, and I am entitled to remove them. And frankly, it's for me as the target to determine whether I react to it or not. - Look, I appreciate your helpful comments in the discussion, and the prospective solution seems a good one for the article. But no one on the project is required to put up with disruptive edits just to avoid "encouraging" trolls. At some point tolerating bad behaviour becomes encouraging it. I hope they are smart enough not to re-insert that thing and stick to the subject, and that this'll be the end of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​You don't understand the point of the policy. If everyone hid other editors' comments because they had their feelings hurt, open debate would fail. There's a high bar for removing other editors' comments in talk pages for the same reason there is a high bar for protected free speech governed by the First Amendment. You protect the rights of others so as to protect your own rights. How would you feel if I deleted the line in your comment above when you said you can "do without misguided if well-meaning backseat condoning from others"? Would you not object if I got on my high horse and said you have no right to accuse me of supporting trolls, and who do you think you are for being a snotty-nosed condescending SOB for saying I'm "well-meaning" in a sarcastic, degrading, insulting tone of voice. Furthermore your comment had nothing to do with the question of application of policy on WP:TPO and is a clear act of trolling by YOU (you hypocrite!), because your comment was "meant purely to annoy in the middle of discussion" and was merely a judgment of me and my opinions as an editor. I HAVE MY RIGHTS!!! I hope you get the point. If everyone acted as you do when someone offends them, and we passively allow Wikipedia to become a police state, then the experiment of open, community-sourced content would fail. Fortunately, you are in a small minority of thin-skinned, self-righteous editors who thinks he has a right to moderate other editors' comments when they take the least offence. Oops, that was meant to be a legitimate comment on the general behavior of editors in Wikipedia as compared to yours, and not a personal attack on you. Please, please don't hide my comment. " And then they came for me..."Coastside (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. And here I had come to the conclusion that you were comporting yourself quite well here (better than me, honestly). Well :/ Is it possible that you really do not understand what "trolling" means? Inserting something insulting not in the course of a discussion, to make an actual point that contributes something even if it might be incivilly phrased (which happens all the time), but just to be an asshole? What Lord Such&Such did was insert a disconnected "You are stupid." Such comments are routinely removed all the time bcause they serve no purpose beyond gratifying the insulting party. If you insist, I'll drop you a list of the most recent ten instances where that was done on AN and AN/I, and generally NOT by admins. - I am not normally thin-skinned, or I would have a hard time as new page reviewer; and I have never previously considered digging in my heels for such a trifle, but the pompousness in your above reply makes me want to. Your contributions at the talk page are appreciated, your throwing your weight behind a troll's right to troll is not. I'll bow out here and unwatch this page; please ping if you want me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I was being ironic.Coastside (talk)

Okay, not to turn this into an esprit de l'escalier moment after walking out, but I had no problem with your jokey quoteboxes on the article talk page - I was referring to the endorsement in your comments here. Anyway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I certainly respect your opinion, although I am a fervent advocate of free speech. Sorry my being rhetorical didn't come across.Coastside (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coastside- I am afraid to continue pressing my point with respect to the Russell Islands discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for fear that my participation in the discussion will be used as evidence of NOTHERE or CIR or that any of that will be brought up in an ANI (words I have learned from reading posts about how bad a user I am). Do you have any suggestions on how I can extricate myself from the discussion? Thanks for any advice. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My current plan is to not add anymore defenses of my position on that page and just let the community decide what should be done. This is the first dispute resolution I have ever done, so I don't know how it normally goes. Thanks for any guidance. If there are any developments in that case, I would like to talk to you here or in a safe page where I am allowed to speak without being accused of various things. I hope I did not sign up for a process where the "winners" not only get their way on Wikipedia but also get to ban the "losers"! Haha Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for reaching out. If you want to extricate yourself, just let me know and I'll close the DRN. As you are the requestor, I can't keep it open without you. As a matter of fact, DRN disucssions only work when all participants want to have a facilitated discussion. There are other venues to pursue disagreements, include WP:RFC, WP:3O, etc., and I'd be happy to help you with those if you like.

More important, though, I'm very saddened to hear how you are afraid of participating in discussion on Wikipedia. That shouldn't be the case, and if it is, something has gone wrong. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can be a difficult place to reach consensus, and it's not for everybody. If I'm reading you right, you're worried that an administrator was invited to the discussion and she will take retribution. Is that right? I can't speak for any particular editor, even an admin, but you should never fear retribution for having your own opinions. I don't see anything but good faith on your part. Even if that weren't the case, you shouldn't fear retribution. Even well-intentioned editors violate policies, and the community and the community processes allows for that. Banning only happens for deliberate and flagrant violations, not policy disputes. You won't be banned for trying to improve Wikipedia. Even if you're wrong on policy, you have a right to assert your opinions just as any other editor. An admin knows this, and they are supposed to be able to navigate the challenges with objectivity. If they don't, they're not doing their job right. Admins aren't "right" because they're admins. Admins aren't gods. They are sysops in a role, and you shouldn't be afraid of them.

Finally, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with you about the copyright issue. The library's use of the content is protected under fair use. In my opinion, no one has adequately addressed why the fair use exception to the rules governing external links doesn't apply. It's not that Wikipedia has a right to use the content under Fair Use. It's that the library has a right to post the content under Fair Use, in order to support education and sholarly research. Because the library isn't violating copyright law, it's not against Wikipedia policy to link to it. As a facilitator, it wouldn't be my position to adjudicate the issue, but I certainly would work hard to make sure your reasonable questions get addressed appropriately. I personally believe a draconian application of copyright laws such as this are harmful to the community's interest in promoting learning and education, which is the very point of the Fair Use exception. Again, though, as a volunteer in DRN, I would be a facilitator of consensus, not an adjudicator.

In any case, let me know how you want to proceed. And please don't be afraid. If you are acting in good faith, and I believe you are, you shouldn't be afraid. This is about making Wikipedia better - not about who is right and who is wrong.Coastside (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Let me consider this and get back to you. I would like to keep it open for now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: I thought I'd let you know that I took your concerns seriously. I raised complaints of abusive bahavior to Drmies's talk page. I left out your name, but not doubt some will know I was concerned about the way you personally were being treated. If you are subjected to retaliation or threats because of this, please let me know, and I will escalate further to the arbitration committee. Drmies's response was dismissive and his buddies whom he pinged to bring into the conversation then pounced with snarky and derisive remarks. I then posted an administrative complaint of abuse by an admin here. Other editors and admins didn't take it very seriously, which is disappointing to say the least. There is a well-documented culture of entitlement among some admins, and many are ready to swarm to protect one another like a pack of hyenas. Not all of them are that way. Most I would say take their role and responsibility more seriously. The hyenas, however, move quickly. There was very little discussion of the actions of Drmies's behavior, and much attention to my own behavior. I tried to be factual and to the point, but they weren't interested in examining the behavior of one of their own. Ultimately they closed the thread as quick as they could in order to keep it out of view and prevent other admins from contributing. It's more than disappointing. It's reflective of a culture that seriously undermines Wikipedia and goes far to explain why more people don't choose to contribute. In any case, I do think you have a right to edit in good faith without fear of retribution from bullying admins. I hope you can find the courage to continue to do so.Coastside (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geographyinitiative, in hindsight, you were right to be afraid of retaliation by "he who shall not be named". As I mentioned I raised concerns about his having threatened you for having availed yourself of the dispute resolution process, and I even opened a AN/I case about it. Before I opened the AN/I case and after it was closed, it felt like I was personally attacked and belittled by as many as 6 different admins. Really, it was overwhelming. The more I complained about it, the more insults and scorn were hurled my way. You're fair game in the AN/I case itself, so I can't really count the insults and ridicule that came my way there. Them's the rules. There were a precious few admins along the way who did take me seriously and responded objectively and respectfully, and I was grateful for that. Several of them, however, seemed to think it appropriate to stalk me on my talk page, belittle me and hurl insults, all while violating many Wikipedia policies themselves. None of the admins ever admonished any of the other admins for bullying or breaking any rules, and yet they sure came after me for all sorts of things. I think for some, wikilawyering and gaslighting are considered fine arts. Actually, come to think of it, you likely won't even get a chance to read this, since it's more than likely one of them will deem this post "disruptive" to Wikipedia and will delete it, and I will have been banned. It's shocking that they are so ready to jump on editors for behaviors they clearly exhibit themselves, and yet they are so willing to turn a blind eye when one of their own does it. It's like a Blue wall of silence. Ultimately "he who shall not be named" threatened me with sanction, too. So, lesson learned. Be careful criticizing admins, and be prepared for an onslaught, especially if you open an AN/I about one of them. I understand why you were afraid, and basically you were very, very right to be. One last thing: be careful about linking to an admin's user page. Apparently, this is considered "pinging" them, even if you don't explicitly "ping" them using the {{ping}} template. If you link to their talk page too many times, it's a serious crime.Coastside (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: be careful about linking to an admin's user page. Apparently, this is considered "pinging" them, even if you don't explicitly "ping" them using the {{ping}} template. If you link to their talk page too many times, it's a serious crime. I mean it's true. There is no difference between {{ping|someUsername}} and [[User:someUsername]] in practice. They both ping (give a notification at the bell at the top of the page). Look at WP:PING. You can "mention" a user called Example by making an edit with a link to their user page (writing [[User:Example]], {{u|Example}}, {{User|Example}}, {{user link|Example}}, {{ping|Example}}, {{Yo|Example}}, or {{reply to|Example}}) and signing the edit using four tildes (~~~~). The user "Example" will then get a notification saying where they were mentioned. This is sometimes called "pinging". See Help:Talk pages#Notifications for more information. If you want to link to a user page without pinging, you use Template:No ping, or {{np|someUsername}} for short. Here I'll prove it and take on this risk myself: Drmies :) Leijurv (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that extra detail on pinging. That was much more helpful than shouting "NOW STOP PINGING ME!" at me. You scared me for a moment, though. When I first saw your post, my eye caught the highlighted link to "He who shall not be named" and I thought, "Oh crap. That does it. Now they're going to delete my whole account and I'll be disappeared from Wikipedia altogether."Coastside (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv:, I've had an epiphany! Your note gave me an incredible idea. I've thought it completely through, and I think it will solve all of these problems. I posted my idea here. Let me know what you think! Coastside (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the title of this section was updated from the original by an admin User:Johnuniq (see reason below). I subsequently edited it again to reflect the intent of my post. 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I appreciate your response about my complaint about Dmries's abusive behavior on his talk page. Specifically: "Coastside, I for one appreciate and applaud your sentiment of going to bat for an editor being bullied, and while I cannot speak for him, I think you would find on any other day that Drmies would say so as well. Wikipedia would be a better place if more editors did so, frankly."

You're the first editor to even acknowledge that I was fundamentally defending the victim of cyberbullying on Wikipedia by an admin. It was very disappointing to see how other admins handled the discussion. It was juvenile.

I'm copying your comment and responding here, because I'm now persona non-grata on Drmies's talk page. In all honesty, I believe he baited me to respond so he could take retribution against me if I commented further there. No, I'm not kidding. In my last comment on Drmies's talk page I was responding to a question by another editor, apparently someone who felt the need to pile on. I wasn't harassing Dmries on his talk page, and I wasn't dragging out the conversation. I was asked a question and I answered it, short and sweet, in good faith. The fact that Dmries responded with his "not welcome" comment is a reflection that he likes to have the last word (that's why he didn't just bow out of the original DRN as Diannaa has the perspicacity to do) - he's lacks the self-awareness to do that. You say on other days he might have demonstrated a more reasonable response. I doubt that. The "not welcome here" is exactly the culture I'm objecting to. He believes his talk page and Wikipedia generally are territory for elite editors and not for editors he deems unworthy. This is a dangerous culture that has already done damage to Wikipedia and it's a big reason why more people choose not to participate in the community. It's destructive, and for an admin, given their special status, abusive.Coastside (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be mistaking politeness for vindication. Did you notice "However, you are on the wrong side of this one." which followed the polite assumption of good faith (diff)? I have changed the heading of this section because the ANI report (permalink) has a closing statement including "Consensus is clear that the concerns voiced by Drmies were valid and that no admin abuse, intended or incidental, occurred." Wikipedia involves disagreements and prolonged discussions, aka arguments. However, experience shows that it is not possible and not desirable to pursue all discussions until everyone is satisfied. You could try asking at WP:Teahouse whether they think an external link to a copyrighted map was (a) desirable and (b) ok regarding copyright. However, requiring busy and very productive editors to argue for a prolonged time is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [deleted unwanted bullying] 01:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO -> "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". Also, per SECTIONHEADINGOWN -> "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible."

Changing the heading to "copyright dispute" when I'm talking about my reporting of an admin's abusive behavior is to change its meaning and is inherently controversial. You should have discussed it before making the change.

Also, in reponse to your suggestion about WP:Teahouse, since you seem to have an active interest, I suggest you read the ANI report. I didn't have an issue with an external link to a copyrighted map. I had an issue with the way an admin responded to a DRN case by another editor. I was a DRN volunteer who objected to the way an admin participated in the case by making a threat to the editor who opened the case. If you think you're a "busy and productive" editor with not enough time to argue for a prolonged time, I don't know why you're here on my talk page arguing. Please feel free to go back to your more productive acitivities.Coastside (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From MIT Technology Review: The Decline of Wikipedia:

...The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia. ... some editors started a page called WikiProject Editor Retention with the idea of creating a place to brainstorm ideas about helping newcomers and fostering a friendlier atmosphere. Today the most vibrant parts of that project’s discussion page have gripes about “bullying done by administrators”, etc.

Coastside (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki investigations are invariably nonsense. Dealing with vandals and trolls is simple: after a little persuasion to change they are removed. What causes productive editors to leave is persistent I didn't hear that arguing about silliness. The comment by Drmies at WP:DRN (diff) was doing the editor a favor by speaking plainly. I have seen many cases where an onlooker encourages a troublemaker in a manner they hope is helpful for the community, but where the encouragement causes the editor to push too hard with the result that they are indefinitely blocked. Check the editor's block log to see that an indef is possible. Have you seen much copyright work at Wikipedia? It is the most dreary and tedious grind but absolutely essential for the project's long-term welfare. It's fine to ask for explanations (once or twice only please) or other opinions (e.g. at the Teahouse), but it's very destructive for the community to try to resolve a phony dispute. No one stopped you posting your opinions—all that happened is that others implied they did not see a need to participate further. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not "all that happened". I don't accept your attempt to minimize what I consider cyberbullying by an admin. User:Drmies didn't need to cajole and insist on having the last word. The External Link the editor had posted had already been removed. As I said, User:Diannaa had the sense to simply exit the conversation, but Dmries appeared to feel the need to bully the editor. Your comment that he was "doing the editor a favor by speaking plainly" is absurd. His remark prompted the user to suggest he should exit the DRN out of fear of retribution. That's not a "favor". You seem to have a concern about admins having to endure the exhausting behavior of editors who just don't know when to quit. Given that, I don't see why you feel the need to persist on arguing with me here, unless maybe you actually enjoy it.

I'd like to suggest you consider reading Wikipedia:Advice_for_new_administrators#Disputes. A refresher might do you some good. Specifically this part:

If you ever find yourself getting sucked into a conflict ... and need to find a way to distance yourself... you'll find plenty to do here or here. Coastside (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment that "Off-wiki investigations are invariably nonsense", I'll refer "on-wiki" to Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia#Decline in editors, which refers to the same authoritative source, i.e., the MIT Technology Review:

Tom Simonite of MIT Technology Review said that for several years running the number of Wikipedia editors had been falling and claimed the bureaucratic structure and rules are a factor in this. Simonite alleged that some Wikipedians use the labyrinthine rules and guidelines to dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

I wonder who Simonite was talking about?Coastside (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, as per WP:NOBAN, and since you aren't accepting comments from me on your talk page, even in response to your personal attacks against me, you're not welcome on my talk page either. So, "go away".

For record's sake, and to document continued disappointing behavior by an admin, and in case anyone other than Drmies is actually still following this...

On Drmies's talk page, I complained about his behavior toward another editor. He asked me not to comment there, and I didn't. He then responded on his talk page (in the very same thread) to the discussion between User:Johnuniq and I here on my talk page. I responded to his negative comments about me, and he subsequently deleted my response.

Here's a record of how he deleted my response to his personal attack: [delete history]

And here's the text of his personal attack and my subsequently response (which he deleted without deleting his own derogatory remarks about me):

User:Johnuniq, I appreciate what you were trying to do on their talk page, but like all the other bits of advice it fell on deaf ears, and I see that you also are now being patronized and held accountable for the decline in new editors--or whatever. I wouldn't have known about it if Coastside didn't feel the need to ping me, which is silly and childish, of course, but their only way to get at me after I told them to not come back to this talk page, and after the ANI thread was closed. There's no point in arguing with such editors; one wished they'd get a hobby, or write some articles. Thanks..., Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [signature as in the original]

DrMies, it's inappropriate for you to tell me I'm "unwelcome" here, and then to respond in this thread to a conversation I was having with User:Johnuniq on on my own talk page. Being an admin, I respected you telling me I "wasn't welcome" and stopped commenting. I fear you will take retribution against me if I don't respect your administrative authority in telling me to "go away". You're welcome to discuss with Johnuniq anywhere else, but not on this thread if I'm not invited to respond. I suggest we close this thread if you don't want to discuss it further. Plus, a "bit of advice" for you, too: you don't want to create the impression that you are trying to defend your reputation here and sully mine with your comments, while at the same time not allowing me to respond. This thread isn't a paper trail for you to whitewash what happened - it was me raising concerns about your behavior toward another editor. The issue is closed, so please don't drag it out further.

Regarding your comment above: You accused me of being "patronizing", which means "apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending" (Oxford)

In the same paragraph you said:

• "like all the other bits of advice it fell on deaf ears"
• "or whatever" * "silly and childish"
• "their only way to get at me after I told them to not come back to this talk page"
• "no point in arguing with such editors"
• "one wished they'd get a hobby"

Readers can decide for themselves whose being patronizing and condescending.Coastside (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [signature as in the original]

Again, for the record, now I've documented Drmies's propensity to personally attack editors without recourse via dispute resolution and without letting them respond. If his abusive behavior continues, I suppose I'll have to now take this up with the arbitration committee. I expect they take the matter more seriously than he apparently does.

I want to thank Drmies for illustrating so clearly how Simonite was right in his observations about the self-righteous, dominating mentality of admins on Wikipedia. Fortunately, they aren't all that way. But sadly many are.

Here's another article worth reading about the toxicity of the culture on Wikipedia:The Culture War Has Finally Come for Wikipedia Coastside (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was actually Floquenbeam who reverted my response on Drmies's talk page after he made personal attacks about me. It's notable how Floquenbeam didn't feel it sufficient for Drmies to handle his own talk page by himself. He felt compelled to intervene on Drmies's behalf. This is similar to how Johnuniq felt compelled to actually change the heading I wrote for this topic in my personal talk page (seriously!). Three separate admins rallying to defend on of their own over accusations of bullying another editor, like Crabbe and Goyle rushing to defend Malfoy. One would think they wouldn't feel the need to pile on like that since the one they rushed to defend already demonstrated a willingness to wield threats of administrative sanction to assert his authority.

This is classic example of what's known as group bullying or Mobbing. In Beyond Bullying: Peacebuilding at Work, School and Home in Psychology Today, the author argues that mobbing is a form of group aggression innate to primates, and that those who engage in mobbing are ... responding in a predictable and patterned manner when someone in a position of leadership or influence communicates to the group that someone must go.

In short, this pattern of admin abuse is not just what Simonite referred to as a needing to "dominate others and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo". It's also a rudimentary manifestation of primitive aggressive tribalism. Either way, certainly toxic for those editors not in the "gang".

Oh, and Floquenbeam and Johnuniq, per WP:NOBAN, you're not welcome to make edits to my talk page. And, as you said, Floquenbeam, in reverting my edit on Drmies's talk page, "not welcome means not welcome". Coastside (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies I'd like to ask you to please remove the derogatory comments you made about me on your talk page.

You told me I was not welcome on your talk page, and I respected that. Then you chose to make derogatory comments about me there. When I replied, objecting to what you said, another admin, Floquenbeam, took it upon himself to reverse my comment with the note "not how it works. 'not welcome' means not welcome.". I realize it wasn't you who reversed the comment, but I don't think it's acceptable to make derogatory comments about me on your talk page and not allow me to respond. I feel your personal attack would be inappropriate in any context, but especially in the context where I raised a formal complaint about your bevior as an admin. The fact that you made those remarks in a thread where I had admonished you feels to me like verbal retribution.

I realize the case I opened about your behavior is now closed, and I'm not reopening that discussion here. I'm simply asking you to remove your subsequent disparagement of me.

Specifically, I'd like you to delete your comment:

Johnuniq, I appreciate what you were trying to do on their talk page, but like all the other bits of advice it fell on deaf ears, and I see that you also are now being patronized and held accountable for the decline in new editors--or whatever. I wouldn't have known about it if Coastside didn't feel the need to ping me, which is silly and childish, of course, but their only way to get at me after I told them to not come back to this talk page, and after the ANI thread was closed. There's no point in arguing with such editors; one wished they'd get a hobby, or write some articles. Thanks..., Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [original signature]

The reasons I feel these comments are derogatory are:

1) you accused me of being "deaf" to advice

2) you accused me of being patronizing

3) you belittled my expression of concern about about the effects of the toxic behavior of authority on Wikipedia with the pejorative "--or whatever"

4) you referred to me mentioning you on my talk page (which apparently "pings" you) as "silly and childish"

5) you accused me of being duplicitous in my response to another admin on my own talk page, saying "the only way to get at me after I told them to not come back to this talk page" - when it was in fact the other editor who commented to me, and I was responding to him, privately on my own talk page

6) you disparaged me by saying "there's no point in arguing with 'such' editors"

7) you disparaged me by saying "one wished they'd get a hobby"

I believe these comments constitute personal, ad hominem attacks, and per WP:TALKNO they don't belong on a talk page. I would remove your comments from your talk page myself, as I have an explicit right to do according to policy regardless of whether you want me commenting on your page, but since you are an admin, I am fearful you will sanction me for not having heeded your authority.

So please remove the derogatory comments yourself.

Thank you.

P.S. I really don't want to discuss this with you or any other admin. I don't need more "friendly" coaching. Just remove the comment and let's be done with it.

P.P.S I know you asked me not to ping you. I have a right to ask you to remove an ad hominen attack against me. Given you don't want me to comment on your talk page, I have to ping you to make this request. So please don't sanction me for that. Coastside (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Pinging you again as you haven't removed the insulting remarks you made about me and you haven't replied. I'm serious in saying I object to being insulted and not being permitted to respond. Please delete your remarks. Coastside (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be seeking my involvement, let me start by saying that if a user bans you from their talk page, they must then undertake not to talk about you in that forum where you are not welcome (and must also prevent others from talking about you there too). @Drmies: could you please enforce this? I am not making a determination whether such thing has happened or not. I'm taking Coastside's complaint at face value. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman, thank you for your response and for taking me seriously. I was serious. I felt I was being bullied and ganged up on by no less than 6 different admins all because I had raised what I thought was a serious issue and for opening an AN/I case. It literally felt like I was being retaliated against. And whenever I objected or complained about it, I got abused further. In any case, I'm not goading or asking for anything more from you here. Mainly I wanted to say thanks for being respectful and for taking me seriously.Coastside (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman, this is getting ridiculous. This user has nothing better to do than to keep pinging me because I called their pinging me silly and childish, which I think is an accurate representation of the matter. Note that I called their pinging me silly and childish, so I can also be as formal as this editor and say that I wasn't commenting on them, only on their actions. Anyone can see that I am trying hard not to respond to this editor's goading me, and that in the past three days nothing has been said by me or someone else on my talk page about them, though it seems, from their contributions, that they tried very hard to make someone respond, one way or another--they tried with Bishönen, Floquenbeam, and even Gerda Arend. So here is what I will do: I will archive the entire section, which started with this baseless and patronizing "you can do better" rant of theirs. And next time someone comments on this editor on my talk page, I will say "since the user is not welcome on my talk page, I must ask you to not talk about them". Can we be done with this enormous waste of time now?

Now Coastside, this continued goading of yours is absurd, of course: you keep pinging me, complaining about how you're not allowed to be on my talk page, when you yourself have also banned me from your talk page: "User:Drmies, as per WP:NOBAN, and since you aren't accepting comments from me on your talk page, even in response to your personal attacks against me, you're not welcome on my talk page either. So, "go away"." So I suppose that this very post, which I am writing here at your request, is a violation? Maybe you'll add that to the long list of charges in my admin abuse case. Well, I trust other editors will see your complaints for what they're worth. And the next time you ping me, I will ask that you be warned and/or blocked for harassment. Similarly, since I may not talk about you on my talk page because you are not welcome there, you may not talk about me on your talk page--that is how that works. If you have anything to say to me, or about me, you can do that on AN, on ANI, or in an arbitration forum, and I don't even need you to notify me. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC) [deleted unwanted bullying and threatening] 01:45, 18 November 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies 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/Superstitions in Muslim societies 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. Bookku (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why there was Removal of Places named after Khan from the wikipedia article? Please provide a valid reason. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifullah.vguj: I assume you are referring to this revision I made to the Khan (surname) article. I explained the change in the revision notes: "moved places to disambiguation page (they don't belong in surname page, which is for people)." I can explain in more detail. The Khan (surname) page is an article page with a qualifier "(surname)" indicating it is about the surname (also known as "family name" or "last name") Khan. This page includes a list of notable people with the surname. Links to articles about places with the name Khan are already included in the disambiguation page Khan. If someone searches for "Khan" looking for a place named Khan, they will find the disambiguation page, which will show them all the articles on places named Khan. For people looking for people named Khan, the disambiguation page Khan includes an entry for Khan (surname), which links to a page showing people with the surname Khan. Hopefully that's clear and answers your question. If not, I'm happy to discuss further. Thanks for asking.Coastside (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But name of places are on Khan (surname) so they should be a part of the article. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifullah.vguj: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me an example of a name of a place which is on Khan (surname)? Maybe it will help to discuss a specific place. Coastside (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example Khan market a place is named after person Abdul jabbar Khan, whose surname was Khan. And there are many other examples also. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Market is the name of place. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example. The Khan (surname) page is an article page on the surname, and it includes a list of notable people with the surname. This is common practice for surname pages. Normally, an article on the surname wouldn't include places with the name, because places don't have surnames. I see what you're saying, though. Since the place is named after a specific individual, then the name of the place is derived directly from a notable person with the surname. In the case of Khan Market, though, it's named after Abdul jabbar Khan. There is no article on Abdul jabbar Khan, so you can't list it as a sub-bullet under him. There is an article on his brother, Abdul Ghaffār Khān, though, and I suppose you could add it as a sub-bullet under the entry for him. I'm not sure that would really be important in an article on the surname, Khan, though. Do you? If you disagree, we could ask for other opinions or open a discussion on this at the WP:TEAHOUSE.Coastside (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifullah.vguj: I thought of a way you could address your concern. You could create a Set Index Article titled List of places named Khan. This is similar to other Set Index Articles named after people. You may want to look at List of places named after people and List of places named Mallory. You may also want to look at Category:Lists of places sharing the same name.Coastside (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course We can do this, and Create a wiki page about List of Places named Khan, but I undid your revision so what can we do now? Saifullah.vguj (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you. I don't think it makes sense to have these places on a surname page. Someone else may eventually decided to delete them. If you want to create a set index article, go ahead.Coastside (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been browsing RfD  – not something I often do – and your insightful, logical and well-sourced comments stand out. You're a role model, and so I thank you. No need to reply. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Go competitions in Germany has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2021 (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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, AlphaGo (film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

IMBd is a user-generated source and almost never considered reliable. If it cites its sources, consider using those instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AlphaGo (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:AlphaGo (film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coastside! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rusalkii (talk) 19:27, 14 January 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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]