User talk:PPEMES: Difference between revisions

Userboxes

This editor has been awarded the
Original Barnstar  

This editor has been awarded the Christianity Barnstar  

This editor has been awarded the Christianity Barnstar  

This editor has been awarded the Teamwork Barnstar  

This user has been identified as an awesome Wikipedian.

Case on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board

Dear SMcCandlish, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, TonyBallioni, Andrewa, Necrothesp or Cuchullain, with whom I have occationally collaborated! After some years of activity here on English Wikipedia, I have attempted to address a prior permanent block issue of my account on Swedish Wikipedia which still endures. It seems I could use some help, if anyone of you would be willing to? Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Swedish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Block_issue. If anyone of you do not wish to be addressed here, let me know and I will delete your pings. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I will help in any way I can. But from a selfish POV, I value your input at enwp as you know. And I actually have a very tricky issue to resolve here that needs a third party opinion from someone competent in both English and Swedish, and in which I have nor involved you to date, because frankly it's a real stinker. So Swedish Wikipedia's loss may be our gain. But I know (from experience) that it's not easy to be rejected. Illegitimi non carborundum. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Thanks a lot for the encouragement. I had hoped for more positive response on my request, so I could really use that positive feedback. That's appreciated! What do you need help with? I will help if I can. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I am not sure I understand how I can help. However, if you contend that I could be, please do explain. That said, as you probably understand, I would wish to minimilise any conflicts I participate in around the border of English and Swedish Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I was blocked on Swedish Wikipedia some time ago and I don't miss all the controversy there, where as you know they have no conflict resolution guidelines of any kind, no WP:3O, no rules against outing, etc. If you tell yourself you don't need Swedish Wikipedia, check your watchlist there and only go in there as an IP once in a while to fix little things which you are 100% sure will benefit that project without controversy, won't you feel better?

I too am willing & able to help User:Andrewa with that mysterious "real stinker" being mentioned here and there, and have also recommended User:Bishonen. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Badge of honor? (I did not create it.)

This user is Proud but disillusioned to be a Swedish Wikipedian in exile.

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Thanks for your comments. I regret your unpleasant experience. As for any such badge, though, I'd decline. I suppose my request hasn't been closed yet. I am still seeking the goodwill of the adverseries. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

On an additional note, my request of unblock of my talk page on Swedish Wikipedia has now been accepted, so I would regard this issue as resolved. Thanks for the support. And let me know if there is anyway I can help anyone of you above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa:, @SMcCandlish: I'd like to thank you for your support. My user account on Swedish Wikipedia has now been recovered. Regarding the issues of Andrewa and SergeWoodzing, let me know if and how I can be at help in an open, forgiving, transparent manner. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm taking a (possibly indefinite) Wikibreak from that specific issue, thanks. One of the important lessons of Wikipedia is, you can't do everything and be everywhere, and particularly with high-angst exchanges it's often best (and gentlest) just to say "stuff you" under your breath and find something more constructive to do. I have an off-the-web attack page that I will probably never publish, neither Jimbo nor Serge nor you are on it but there are some quite high-profile Wikipedians there with lots of evidence of gross misbehaviour, and I find keeping it up to date quite therapeutic. (;-> (It's also instructive in that some really annoying people come out a lot better than some relatively innocuous ones when you put the evidence all in one place. I recommend pbwiki, we were building the cloud there long before the term was popularised, just as we were using structured programming long before that term was popularised by Niklaus Wirth, who doesn't even get a mention in that last but one article as far as I can see. I had some contact with Wirth in the late 1970s, and it's interesting to see how different history looks to historians compared to how it looks to those of us who were there.) Andrewa (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What to write...

You asked what you should write in this matter. Sorry for a late reply, but I was working and could not write too much doing so. I understand you, because it is not an easy task and it might be your only chance. I will give you some advice here, and I hope you do not feel offended or so . For those who read here and do not understand Swedish (to read the long discussions on svwp), this is a try to help. I have aided before on svwp in disputes between users (by mail, but with the rest of the comunity knowing I was the medler). I have also been a help off-wiki for the late User:Obelix, mentioned by Yger, who became my friend before he passed away when he neede to discuss (also known by the comunity). I was also one of the users who voted for a permanent block of Chick...

• Check the history to remember what happened and why you were blocked. Think carefully what you could have done instead to avoid the blocks. (The last block was too bad, start arguing again directly after a 6 month-block...)
• You have to say you have had contact with me on enwp and discussed this issue. That is no secrete!
• You were in too much conflicts in two subjects: Right-wing extremism and the Catholic church. Say you will (if unblocked) refrain from editing in those subject on svwp. (That is one of the main things)
• Explain you understand sourcing better now, and if there are any slightest posibility that the source is not good you will not add it, but ask on the discussion page for that article or...
• ...say that you are willing to have a mentor during a test period (for example 6 month), whom you can ask about sourcing and if you are in doubt and want to have a second opinion before you write when it is a discussion. (Obelix had that after he had his long block.) I am willing to be that mentor (but I understand very well if you do not want me, and you could then ask someone else that the comunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicbyaccidenttrusts. No matter what - I will not "vote" yes or no this time on svwp because I am now too involved in this discussion, but I will of course answer in the discussion on svwp)
• Say you will avoid all articles that are easy to get in conflicts, and that you will obey a concensus when that happens.

I think this is a good start. It is up to you to choose from this and I wrote this as a help and not as a way to make you feel bad. If you do I apologize now. Best regards, Adville (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adville: No stress. No offense taken. I acknowledge that negative feedback on Swedish Wikipedia tended to relate to religion and in some instances to political sciences. As for sourcing, if I made any mistake I am happy to repeat my regrets for that. As one of my main adverseries, I certainly appreciate you sharing your thoughts in hindsight. Yes, I guess without you willing to vouch for me vis-à-vis the couple of other contenders that sort of vetoed against my previous request, chances are indeed slim. If you insist that the above stated conditions collectively would be a prerequisite for such an amnesty, and with yourself as a token, then I would accept that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes it easier for you to be accepted if you conditions your comeback yourself. Then, when it is working and you are more familiar with the svwp-system (working good and is smaller so it does not need the same structure as enwp - I know some who are not thinking like that, because they were blocked, but the same thing would have happened here too if the same behaviour was noticed) the conditions will be loosened, and finally gone. (We do not like to have users with topic ban, if it is not because of COI because you are too much friend with the topic)

By doing like this I think you have a fair chance, even if I will be neutral in a vote.

Actually one thing that made me write tips for you in the first place was that you rejected the "proud Swede in exil"-thing you were offered, and why. It shows you understand some why you were blocked and have an insight what to do. Do not be too confrontative and think everyone else is wrong and you are right, and if someone ask why do not say "you have grudges against me", when it is the topics discussed. Keep on the topics discussed, then you will have a good chance to stay on svwp, also if you keep off things you have a conflict with (church and the extreme parties). Br Adville (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adville:, @Yger: Thanks. However, still not sure how to go about this. I mean, nothing new has happened on Swedish Wikipedia since last time. Applying the same criteria as last time, how could the rejection not be repeated, please? I'm afraid I still need more help on how to proceed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Adville indicates correctly what is needed:

• that you aknowledge the reasons that you, in the end, got blocked. What you write here above is not correct. We (I) spent nine months and endless number of entries explaining this, you just have to reread these comments on your talkpage
• that you indicate a strategy you intend to follow, not to get into the same problem. Adville mention examples of this, but I think there could be other strategies as well.

And that you state these two parts on your discussion page.Yger (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And to help, the reasons were:

• that your entries especially on catholic church in mediaval Sweden were in several cases controvercial, and in some cases againt the view of all/a majority of collegues on svwp
• that you when the consensus was against you entry/view, you got aggressivee, breaking our rule on edit war, etiquette and also that you never accepted the consusus but demanding a never ending disscussion on the subject

Yger (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Adville and Yger, thank you for your comments. I assume responsability for occational sloppyness including naïve too WP:BOLD mistakes, as well as proposing Roman Catholic Church#Name English Wikipedia consensus contrary to the one on Swedish Wikipedia. Would you accept a consession to your condition to not edit talk pages nor article realm pertaining to Roman Catholic Church? I don't expect to be able to extend much more contribution to Wikipedia altogether, yet it would be appreciated. So please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

As you still seems not to understand or aknowledge what got you into trouble, I do not see it worthwhile for you to start up again on svwp. Theoretcally there could be restrictions but I do not like it as a solution, if you are not aware of what edits from you are probematic. You completly leave out the process part of your edits that got you from just being of a different opinion and into hard conflict. The conflict was not of your views, but that you did not respect consensus and that you got inte a rage.Yger (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yger:. Thank you for your reply. Sorry if the attempted summary of shortcomings wasn't precise and/or exhaustive enough! Please let me know ways to improve it. The only specific example I could find of "rage" attribution was you here, citing WP:POVPUSH (translated from Swedish): "aggressively promoting one opinion", "too many posts in too short time", "attrition", "provocative", "tactical posts" that "drained the energy" of other editors. You administred the block "minimilised to two weeks since mostly about talk page content". I do apologise for that. Concurringly, I affirm there were more instances that you deemed "problematic", not respecting consensus or similar to "hard conflict". Please let me know could any of these other individual arguments use a reevaluation and/or apology. I'd be happy to. Restrictions I wouldn't mind accepting since I don't expect to be able to contribute significantly more anyway. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies are of no use. Noone is angry at you as a person. We noticed though that you stole our energy, and thta you did not react contrutivly on our remarks. And th~ere is a worry that this will be the case agian if you would return. I have nothing more to say how you should fomulate yourself on our talkpage to get success and an unblock.Yger (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope we keep in mind that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive, and they're not forever (unless it comes to a community ban, and even those can sometimes be undone). After a lot of time has passed and an editor has demonstrated plenty of constructive editing at a project next door, without similar problems arising, it is probably a safe bet that the editor will work out better at .se WP when given a second chance. I see a lot of contrition and understanding above. The bullet-list of instructions above seem fairly clear at first, but on a deeper read seem a bit game-playing, in that the editor is being asked re-state a bunch of contrition but to do it just perfectly by some subjective criteria that aren't really very clear except to their author. It's like "see if you can guess how to smooth our feather back down, and if you guess wrong, too bad!". This doesn't seem necessary or productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion to lift the block on svwp is to be held at svwp not here. Last time I myself gave the opportunity for C to ask for it, and it was rejected at once by som other then me. So I am actualy trying to help C for this not to occur again. But if my comments here is seen as bad I will of cource stop write here immediatly.Yger (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Adville: Thanks again for unlocking my talk page there. Thanks also for the advices provided by you and Yger. However, none of you rejected my prior request without consideration - it was rejected by a couple of other users. I have told you that I am OK with any of the conditions you have proposed above. Sorry for writing to you here again but I'm still not sure how to go about filing the request without merely repeating the sequence of the previous attempt. Thanks also to SMcCandlish for taking the time to comment on this issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

sorry for not answering. I have had rhe flue (still) and too much at work... Ill try to give a good answer soon. Best regards Adville (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Take care and get well soon. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I stumbled across this more or less by chance (after seeing their edits on everything and anything related to Norse people and history), and decided to take a look at what had happened at sv-WP (I'm fluent in Swedish), and, well, the kind of editing that Chicbyaccident engaged in at sv-WP, and their general behaviour there, would have led to an indef here too (for WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE, which seems to be pretty much what they were blocked for on sv-WP...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Thomas.W, thank you for your comment. I partly adressed your comment here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#"Viking"_naming. Please let me what edit you are referring to and I will try my best to improve it accordingly. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In accordance with your answer here, I assume this was a complaint about former discussions that happened years ago on Swedish Wikipedia. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adville: @Yger:, excuse for pinging you again, but I just want to make sure that I haven't missed any opportunity to hear from you regarding my request for unblock that I am about to file on my talk page on Swedish Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is anything else you can do to help me to not just have the request result in plain refusal without giving it any consideration. Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for a late answer. I just married and am on a honeymoon/ worktrip to Italy. Only checking fast now and then on wiki reverting junk on svwp. Saw you wrote something on your talk page on svwp, but have not had time to read. Best regards, Adville (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that's very nice! Make sure to enjoy! In any event should you have the time to reply, though, please consider it on Swedish Wikipedia for convenience. Have a great time! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It was a wonderful trip to Brescia, Verona, Padua and Venezia (and great robot training too). As you saw I did answer and it seems to be 50-50 right now. Discussions going slow due to the Holidays. Happy new year! Adville (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Understandibly - thanks for your kind assistance. Sounds great, have a blast! Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked on Svwp

Congratulations! Use next year to show that I and Yger did the right thing to believe in you. Happy new year! Adville (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Adville and Yger, thank you for extending your help in this. I do hope there will be fewer inconviences. I wish you a Happy New Year! PPEMES (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear this is finally resolved. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not finally resolved. Only if the user avoids POV-pushing in the future this will be a permanent solution. Tostarpadius (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tostarpadius: Welcome! Why don't you share your arguments for the Swedish WP:CONSENSUS here on English Wikipedia? You are a skilled and determined Swedish debater on the matter. That merits sharing in the article realm here too for the sake of a better Wikipedia. Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation! I have no interest of that. My only intention here was to tell the users that you have got a chance, but that your contributions are carefully read because of your history. Tostarpadius (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Alternative WP tasks

Greetings! I have avoided conflicts on Wikipedia by contributing with article assessments. These are helpful for other editors working on an article in their area of expertise.

Most mornings I focus on wikiprojects that I'm interested in. Afternoons I help on Category:Unassessed biography articles which has 90,000 + article backlog. A very useful tool for helping with talk page assessment is Rater script. On article pages, add or remove stub notices as needed. Also add "Subject bar" template & "Authority control" or missing "Defaultsort".

I don't know if you would like to help with assessment but for me it's an interesting and rewarding way of contributing. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The best way to avoid conflicts on Wikipedia is obviously to avoid Wikipedia altogether. Conversely, conflicts will inevitably occur sometime along the way. This regards us all. Most of us will pay little or no attention to the positive merits of fellow contributors - that is, before we discover an edit or some edits with which we don't agree. Only then do we provide feedback: negative feedback. This isn't anybody's particular fault, it is part of the voluntary system. While contributors pay with their time and efforts, as for myself I like to try to keep this in mind when discovering an edit I disagree with: that most of the contributions before and hypothetically afterwards will tend to be positive. Although I have no reason to expect from other user but for the benefit of Wikipedia and for users to keep bringing positive contributions, I would hope and like to think that many other users also keep do this in mind. PPEMES (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly avoid starting move/merge proposals, which should only be a small part of an editor's work. One thing I'd suggest is updating the images on less-viewed articles. These have often not been looked at for years, and Commons now has far better choices. Not so true for popular articles. Or of course, many articles have no image, but now could, from Commons. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Portals.

Each editor included on the participants list receives the project's newsletter on their talk page.

There are many gaps in the portal system in the area of your interest. Please take this opportunity to help fill them in.

I look forward to working with you.

Any and all questions are welcome.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   12:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

CFD: Template:Centuries in Christianity

• Oppose: The templates are very different and (if you look closely) you will see that zero links are shared by the two templates... Template:Centuries in Christianity link all to categories, such as Category:1st-century Christianity. Template:Christianity by century link all to articles, such as Christianity in the 1st century. Thus Template:Centuries in Christianity goes on category pages and Template:Christianity by century goes on article pages. I would support a name change to Template:Centuries in Christianity reflect the difference. tahc ^chat 18:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tahc: Thanks for your feedback. Do you mind if I ask you to move the content to the relevant talk page, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

A copy is already there... but you can remove from here if you like. tahc ^chat 20:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Eden hat

hello
I came across your merge tag here; the proposal seemed a bit askew (tacked on to an 8 year old discussion, links not leading to the right page) so I have re-drafted it (here). I trust you are OK with that. I've opposed it, btw; I've posted my reasons on the page there. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Answered on Talk:Anthony Eden hat. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I see you have changed the merge proposal here to a Split. I've reverted it, as it doesn't work like that. You brought up the merger; if you are now changing your mind, withdraw it per process (ie. say so in the discussion, and archive it) then post a proper split proposal. But as the purpose of splitting is usually to create a new spin-off article (which this page in effect already is) it's looking more and more like what you really want a deletion by stealth. In which case I recommend you take it to AfD and have done with it. Swanny18 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. I'd stick to the merge proposal, then. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hats and headgear

Moved from Talk:Anthony Eden hat § Template:Hats & Template:Headgear

Moved from User talk:PPEMES in order to let other users take part on an accessible location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPEMES (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to these templates, for the reason given there. You need to drop the stick; this is borderline disruptive editing. Swanny18 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if any of my suggestions of improvements to the best of my understanding to Anthony Eden hat made you upset. I moved your comment to a possibly more accessible location for the convenience of other users' feedback. Let me know if you object to this. Anyway, let's cover the process which I initiated and in which you have participated, objecting the proposals:

1. Proposal to merge Anthony Eden hat with Anthony Eden (hesitated about standalone article motivation, further specified that a split merge could be a solution into Homburg hat and Anthony Eden) - opposition accepted
2. Rename suggestion to Anthony Eden's homburg hat (for WP:PRECISION) - opposition accepted
3. Exclusion from Template:Hats (hesitated about equivalence/proportion compared with other listed hats; excluded in Template:Clothing) - opposition accepted

I'm happy to excuse any mistake. Which of the steps above - or any other that I may have failed to recognise - motivate your accusations, please? Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved back here from Talk:Anthony Eden hat. A user talk page is the proper venue to discuss behavioral issues. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this is really unfortunate. Swanny18, I'm afraid that calling this borderline disruptive editing is going too easy; this is clear refusal to accept consensus or get the point; there are also whiffs of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and some level of failure to understand how discussion and consensus works at Wikipedia, at a very basic level. Although I don't believe it is intentional, nor do I see malice, nevertheless this is disruptive editing by definition, and it needs to stop now, one way or another.

PPEMES, I don't think anybody is upset, nobody is making accusations, and nobody is asking for apologies or excuses, afaict. You need to gracefully accept the consensus of recent discussions, even if you don't agree with them, even if you don't understand them, and not keep bringing this up over and over. If a user persists in behavior of this type even after it's been explained several times, the next step is forcing compliance in order to stop the disruption. Please desist before it comes to that, you have too much positive to contribute, to allow that to happen. But you do need to understand how much time and attention of multiple editors you are bottling up with your recent disruption around Anthony Eden hat and related topics; that is disruptive, and it will stop one way or another. The best way, is if you just let it go. Please say that you will. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Note about TP usage: PPEMES, with regard to your earlier move of this discussion to Talk:Anthony Eden hat in order to "let other users take part on an accessible location", the right way to do that for a non-content dispute, is to leave the discussion here on your Talk page, and add a NPOV message and link to the discussion here from any venue in which you care to advertise it. For example: at Talk:Anthony Eden hat there is now a link pointing to this discussion, that anyone can join. You could, if you wish, add a link pointing here from Template talk:Hats, or from Template talk:Clothing, or from relevant WikiProjects. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

While related, I consider them three different scopes, though I don't intend to propose any other related changes. Sorry if you condider this a bad thing. I really tried to argue specifically for the three separate improvements to the best of my understanding. PPEMES (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swanny18: @Mathglot: While I notice that you opposed, perhaps increasingly, all three proposals above, I have a hard time understanding how accusation of "disruptive editing" or any consensus process deviation can be combined with assertions of "no intent", and "no malice". However, this is important to me, and I'd like to clear it out. I haven't seen anymore follow-up comments from any of you two. Is there any more uncertainty about this issue or my intents in it now? I'd happy for a clarifying answer or repetition of any questions that would remain unattended in this case. Many thanks! PPEMES (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you are asking here. If you are asking how one could simultaneously describe your editing as "disruptive" while acknowledging that there's no malice behind it, you may misunderstand what "disruptive" means. Something well-meant can still be disruptive, and I have no doubt you mean well. If you are asking why there aren't further comments at Talk:Anthony Eden hat, it's because both of those discussions are closed. I don't know what "unattended questions" refers to, so can't respond to that. I understand that you don't intend to propose any other related changes for now, which means that any disruption which may have been caused in that area is now over. Since it's over, it's not disruptive anymore, and we can all just go back to improving the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that I have no more proposals of intended improvements in that particular area. I wish you too a happy editing. However, please be reminded that for me it is not happy editing as long as you let the accusation of policy violations above remain, unfortunately. PPEMES (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I truly don't have a good reply to that; making people happy is above my pay grade at Wikipedia. But maybe this cookie will help! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the thing is, am I still the subject of accusation of policy violation? If so, how can I possibly to anything better to your satisfaction? PPEMES (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Chill. There are a zillion policies and guidelines here, and you, I, and everybody violates one or another of them all the time. Generally you don't even know you have crossed a line until someone tells you, and then the key thing is just to seek and accept consensus and then carry on. I'm just another editor here, so you don't have to pay any special attention trying to do things to my satisfaction. Just follow the rules as best you know them, and if someone raises a valid behavioral issue, and you stop doing whatever it was, then it's over. There's no "cloud" or "accusation" somehow hanging around afterward. You just go back to doing whatever you enjoy doing at Wikipedia. And I hope doing what you enjoy, makes you happy. Now I, too, would like to get back to those things as well, so once again: Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks for taking your time to clear that out. I wish you too happy editing! PPEMES (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw your note; do you still want an answer to this? Swanny18 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Grand Highness moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Grand Highness, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Don (honorific)

On the subject of this, it's up to you if you want to change your name, but unless you want to be suspected of 'abusively using multiple accounts' I suggest you say so clearly in any discussions where you have previously edited as Chicbyaccident. I've flagged the ones I came across; you'll know better than me where else you've edited in this way and I suggest you fix them also. Swanny18 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: Actually, I notice Dekimasu has already warned you about this, at Talk:His Holiness, and you haven't done anything about it yet. That doesn't look good... Swanny18 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I inconveniently missed out on any post-user account rename conventions or routines. Not in the habit of changing username. If, after I changed the username, I would have voted twice in a discussion, then your comment what have been more understandable to me. However, only one user account has been used. Where's the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry abuse about that? PPEMES (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As for this, I didn't say your were abusively using multiple accounts, I said you could be suspected of abusively using multiple accounts, and if you wished to avoid that you should remedy the situation: Which is much the same as what Dekimasu told you. You replied to him there, but you didn't do any thing about it. Now, if someone was assuming good faith they could always take that as just being careless: On the other hand if they were suspecting you weren't really listening, they would be thinking you weren't really listening.

And as for "Not in the habit of changing username": Well, that isn't altogether true either, is it? Swanny18 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)