User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2023

User:JayBeeEll and no contact

User:JayBeeEll, per WP:NOBAN (a guideline), "If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project." I often contact editors in theit talk pages. I don't have much interaction with you and as such I don't remember you nor your request.

After you made your request and as long as I remembered, I avoided writing in your talk page. But I won't be having a note to check every time I write in the talk page of another editor just because your request. If by chance I happen to stumble in some situation where you are involved, I will try to avoid your talk page, but within reason and if I remember you. You are just telling editors who make complaints about you or similar disputes not to write in your talk page, which I don't think is a reasonable stance unless there is some wikihounding or behavior against policies going on. In addition, you have a special permission (new page reviewer) and I find it inappropriate that you are having this sort of behavior trying to stop editors from communicating with you. Thinker78 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on Village Pump

This is originally posted as a reply to you on Village Pump which got stuck in pending changes, therefore a copy has been posted here.

Correct indeed. Given the flimsy shameful Wikimedia response even when it received widespread attention, there's good reason to suspect that such problems are more widespread than what were uncovered, across many Wikipedias not excluding here. We are thus forced to consider the possibility that many otherwise useful contents have been lost or otherwise warped due to such interferences.

At this point it's time for all of us to consider content boycott wherein from now on just stop contributing new content here and instead consider using alternative fork sites instead. Deletionism? Financial cancer? Let 'em rot!

• Encycla (Git-based)
• Justapedia (Created by User:Atsme, rumors are that it's in closed beta now and may be released sometime this year).

After all it's already a bad idea to put so many eggs in a place for so long. The free knowledge movement doesn't have to been restricted to a single platform.2A04:2180:0:1:0:0:89E4:DE0D (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Saw your comment at NPP

Hi, Thinker! I was going to email you with a few tips about the issue you've experienced, but you don't have email activated. If you're interested, I'm always willing to help, and you can email me from my user talk page. Otherwise, my apologies for the intrusion. Atsme 💬 📧 00:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Atsme thanks for reaching out! What issue are you mentioning? Generally I communicate via talk page. I have yet to get an email specific for Wikipedia. I think Wikimedia could have a website for private messaging and email. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP has a Discord channel but that one is for NPP reviewers, and not exactly private. I teach at NPPSchool, and try to reach out to potential NPP trainees to consider taking a course and then applying for the PERM (being granted relevant user rights that are unique to NPP). Anyway, it's not a biggy but I do recommend activating the email feature in your user preferences (very top menu bar). Email activation is located on the "User profile" page. Just below that you will see email settings which also afford you the ability to block emails originating from certain users, newbies, etc. Wasn't sure if you were aware of those features or not. Atsme 💬 📧 16:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the feature but following recommendation by Wikipedia of having an email specific to it I haven't activated it. Thinker78 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

IP block exempt

Hello Thinker78. I've granted you WP:IPBE. Per standard procedure, this is a temporary grant, renewable on request if you still need it later. You look like someone who may not prefer templates, so I'll link to Template:IP block exemption granted instead of dropping it here. I also want to add that, as you're currently discussing IPBE policy at VPP, this is not intended to, nor should it in any way affect, your continued discussion of the policy. This was performed per my standard assessment of your complaint about being affected by blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz This was unexpected and unusually proactive by an admin. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

World War I article

Hello Thinker78

To my great regret, I missed the discussion on the lead sentence of this article, but would like to have my say. In my experience, First World War is the most common term in Commonwealth countries, and World War I is the most common in the US. The following NGram shows that First World War is marginally the most common term in English worldwide.[1] So following MOS:BOLDSYN the lead sentence should be: World War I (WWI) (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), also known as the First World War...

This isn't cluttered or difficult to read, and captures the two most important names for the conflict in English. Is there any way at this late stage I can propose this? Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Aemilius Adolphin. Just copy the relevant part of your post and paste it in the talk page of World War 1 as a new discussion thread. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl

Where is citation 5? Doug Weller talk 13:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I didn't remove any citation from Quetzalcoatl. Does citation 5 start with, "The Nahuatl nouns compounded into the "? If not, can you quote it? I moved text from lead to the new etymology section. That's where that citation is. Thinker78 (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I invoked a non-existent named reference by mistake. I fixed it. Apologies. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to develop any paid editing policy with you

If a corporation sends paid editors to Wikipedia then I think it is fine to have public conversation with the corporation at the Wikipedia article which they edit, especially if it is the Wikipedia article for their corporation.

Such conversations do not only concern the wiki editor and the paid media consultant. They are in the broader interest of both Wikipedia and any public or journalist reviewing the talk page.

I recognize that such situations lack much precedent. If you would join me in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or any other forum you suggest to discuss further, then I would bring the issue there for more comment. Thanks.

You are totally within wiki community norms to take a position that such content may not belong on article talk pages. I may be in the wrong here. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry As always, there are different interpretations of guidance. But WP:TALK#TOPIC states, Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Although I have to point out that it is only a guideline, not even a policy.

I think for the community discussion you had in mind, that don't relate on how to improve the article, maybe it would be best to have it at VillagePump and place a wikilink in the article's talk page to direct the relevant people there.

If you start a discussion in the COI noticeboard feel free to ping me. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Discussions_between_wiki_editors_and_corporations Bluerasberry (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Discussions_between_wiki_editors_and_corporations Bluerasberry (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Assassinated American civil servants

A tag has been placed on Category:Assassinated American civil servants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor - help on Spanish Wikipedia

Hi Thinker78. I see that you are fluent in Spanish, so I wonder if I can enlist your help with an editor who has been editing both here and on Spanish Wikipedia. I would communicate them with directly, but apparently I don't have enough of an edit history there to leave a message on their talk page. My attempts are thwarted by some kind of filter - maybe they implemented a minimum edit count to get autoconfirmed status.

The user in question is Pamelaespinall and they are writing about an organization called "Artelatam". I discovered off-wiki evidence that they are involved with this organization and almost certainly an undisclosed paid editor. Their initial edit on English Wikipedia was on their userpage, which was deleted as promotional (and a copyright violation). I've warned them on their talk page.

On Spanish Wikipedia, they have created the page es:Usuario:Pamelaespinall/Taller. It's a copy of the same thing they wrote on their English userpage, and still written in English. Since I think they should receive a message in the language of the wiki they're on, I wanted to leave them this: {{subst:Aviso conflicto de interés|2= paga}}. FYI, the full template with all its options is here: es:Plantilla:Aviso conflicto de interés.

Would you be able to leave this warning for them at es:Usuario discusión:Pamelaespinall? It's my experience that nipping undisclosed paid editing in the bud is a lot better than cleaning up a bunch of wreckage later if they're left alone. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Muchas gracias para su ayuda! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Religion userbox

This user is a member of Wikiproject Religion. What's the truth?

Hi, Thinker78. I saw your request for a userbox with switchable colours and I put together User:Stockmausen/Userboxes/Wikiproject Religion. Check out the page for instructions and examples. For the colours of the rainbow I used slightly shaded versions of Newton's division of the spectrum because I thought cyan would be too garish. Of course the colours can be changed if needed. I can move the template to wherever appropriate if you so want or need. All the best. Stockmausen (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Stockmausen You got it neat! Thanks so much! Thinker78 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem! I'm glad you like it. Stockmausen (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Be more careful

Your views on some pseudoscientific topics and conspiracy theories are becoming evident in your editing. I suggest you broach your suggested article edits on the talk pages before making them, as they are just getting reverted and your credibility as an editor damaged. Start with assuming the articles are correct and that there is something you don't understand.

Keep in mind that our articles are developed by many experienced editors who have checked most of the RS available. Don't let that stop you from asking, as you may be that unique person who really has discovered a new RS that changes the whole game. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean It is normal for the status quo to want to revert non-aligned material. I am used to push back since my times in a labor union and as far back to elementary school. People are resistant to change and are usually not very neutral nor open-minded in their actions sadly. Read User:Thinker78#The status quo sometimes is wrong. I personally have a one-revert rule that I mostly follow and if you notice I use the talk pages regularly, trying to reach consensus. My edits are mostly not reverted though. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960s assassinated politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1960s assassinated politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thinker78 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated politicians in the Americas has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated politicians in the Americas 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) 09:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, Category:Assassinated Pan-American presidents, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 3#Category:Assassinated Pan-American presidents – Fayenatic London 08:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Thinker78. Thank you for your work on Roy McGann. User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

please add the appropriate infobox and a few more sources

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thinker78 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent has been nominated for discussion

Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated heads of state by time has been nominated for discussion

Category:Assassinated heads of state by time has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Before Common Era assassinated politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:Before Common Era assassinated politicians 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:2nd millennium assassinated American politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:2nd millennium assassinated American politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:19th century assassinated American county and local politicians has been nominated for discussion

Category:19th century assassinated American county and local politicians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. There are many more CfD's like this one coming up soon, and this mess you created may be reported to WP:ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1st millennium assassinated heads of state

A tag has been placed on Category:1st millennium assassinated heads of state indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thinker78 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

CFD discussions

Hi, I was seeing your frustration in the CFD discussions and just wanted to stop by and say "hi". The uncivil comment in this one was just struck. As for the other feedback, CFD has a very short writing style since there are so many nominations, and the discusses rely heavily on the section shortcuts from the WP:OC page which can seem abrupt.

Most of the specific concerns are around WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT. I noted it in one of the nominations, but there is a longstanding consensus that WP:SMALLCAT applies when there are 4 or fewer articles, even though the editing guideline doesn't give a specific number (which is unhelpful to new editors).

I've made categories that weren't supported by a consensus too, like here. And I (eventually!) was able to incorporate that feedback. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Thanks very much for your cordiality and insights. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated caliphate politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated caliphate politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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) 05:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Byzantine politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated Byzantine politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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) 05:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Stop making trivial edits to policy pages relating to categorization and disrupting discussions on WP:WikiProject Categories. If you are saying things like this then you have demonstrated that you are well aware that you don't have consensus for your changes. - car chasm (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm kindly don't come threatening me wantonly only because of edits you don't agree with. It is a violation of the CIVILITY policy and runs afoul of the consensus policy. If you think I did something wrong, you should have had the cordiality to properly express your concerns instead of rudely coming templating me with a generic block threat. And for your information, the WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION changes I made regarding the examples were done with CONSENSUS and following advice of User:Jc37, an administrator. Thinker78 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the edits you made to that page were constructive or useful. An adminstrator already asked you to be careful when editing, they didn't give you permission to do whatever you wanted. Meanwhile, you ask questions that show you haven't even read the pages you're editing! And as for WP:CFD, if multiple people in the project disagree with you and are asking you to stop doing things, while no one has agreed with you on anything, and you argue with all of them and continue your behavior, you are being disruptive. - car chasm (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carchasm I will wait for User:Jc37 response about this. But I think your attitude is really uncollegial and uncalled for. You simply disagree with the changes I made and decided to threaten me instead of even having the basic cordiality of discussing the issue beforehand with me. I actually routinely modify guidelines and my changes generally are welcome by fellow editors. I don't know what kind of logic you have of threatening people and then discussing the issue. You should really check how WP:CONSENSUS works in Wikipedia.

Regarding your assertion that "you haven't even read the pages you're editing", no idea how you came to that conclusion. How many pages constitute "large categories"? The guidelines don't seem to specify a number. Did I miss something?

Regarding the CfDs, I simply discuss things as is the purpose of a discussion. I was told by a closer (User:Qwerfjkl) "given you created the categories, the onus is on you to populate them, not to leave it to other editors. You should try to add at least 5-10 articles to each category."

Again, I really think you should not be so rude to threaten experienced editors with a generic block template if you haven't even tried to solve your dispute with them amicably. Thinker78 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. You have a pattern of disrupting Category discussion pages, and as someone who has been here since at least 2015, or 2001 according to your user page, you have no excuse. You have several warnings already for other disruptive behavior in your talk page archives, indicating that your time here has not resulted in experience.

Given your admission here, it is clear you are already aware you do not have consensus for changes like this. As you already know that you haven't "recieved a warm welcome" in your words, you shouldn't be changing policy wording to favor your side in a discussion no one agrees with you on. You probably shouldn't be editing policy pages at all when asking questions like this that show a lack of familiarity with those policies. - car chasm (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Less of a dispute it could not be. Try following the WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION process. You are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. And also read the WP:VANDALISM policy because you evidently are not complying with it when you plastered your vandalism template here.

The edit I made where I included the word "necessarily" was done organically not as a result of favoring myself. I was reading it while moving the examples and I think I reflected what the guideline and practice states. I edit pages I come into contact with. I will further discuss it in the relevant talk page.

I spent many hours in the categories because I was motivated and I started like a month ago. Then I got bombarded with deletion or merging proposals and I simply explained and discussed, while trying to address editors concerns of the lack of population of the categories I created.

Again, regarding your bad analysis showcasing my question about large categories, I will repeat the words of User:RevelationDirect, "The WP:SMALLCAT editing guideline I actually find really frustrating because it doesn't give a clear number to help new-ish editors."

Then I find my question to clarify large categories appropriate. Thinker78 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

I went ahead and removed the vandalism warning template. I don't think it applies here.

I have not looked at the edit histories of either of you, and so have not investigated what may be going on.

That said, as you both seem to know, I'm aware of the situation at WP:OC.

First, I want to thank you both for trying to talk this out per WP:BRD and WP:CON.

Thinker78, I think your edits there were well-meant (and clearly not vandalsm), but after seeing what you seem to want to do (twice now), I think it's probably best if you don't try to move the examples. For one thing, I am not sure why in some cases you moved the links to certain CfDs into "see also" links and others just moved to be "examples". There were several other confusing edits too.

No one is expected to be perfect here. Mistakes happen.

But I think at this point with WP:OC, at least, I think you should propose what you are planning to do on the talk page, and if, after a few days no one objects, then try it out.

Doing this before doing what could be seen as major edits on policy pages, might help to prevent any more disruptions and/or misunderstandings.

I hope this helps. - jc37 06:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Narrow Comment I don't want to wade into this whole conversation and will instead reply on that talk page, but @Carchasm: this edit didn't show that Thinker78 wasn't reading the WP:SMALLCAT policy. Rather, it showed that they had read my comment above and those of others in the discussions.

Some CFD participants believe 5 articles is the magic number of what's small, some 10. But categories with 5 consistently survive WP:SMALLCAT in CFD and have for years. That's important information for editors new to CFD to have, and there's not even a hint of that guidance in the actual guideline. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Potentially pausing on new assassination categories

This is merely a suggestion, but I would encourage you to temporarily pause creation of new assassination categories until the current CFD nominations close. That will give time to see what the consensus is on creating similar cats going forward, and maybe avoid ones that are unlikely to aid navigation like this one.

It's definitely more fun to be creating categories that are likely to stick around! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Ok, I will embrace your recommendation, thank you. Although I have to say I did not create the parent Category: Assassinated judges by nationality and I believe it has potential to grow, per WP:SMALLCAT, "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". Notice it is a similar category to Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You have not embraced @RevelationDirect's sagacious advice and are continuing to create categories without doing it properly: ie populating each one before moving on. You are not even adding subcats which you yourself created: Category:1930s assassinated politicians should include Category:1930s assassinated French politicians, obviously. Oculi (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I did pause creating categories. I re-started after the discussion Assassinated American county and local politicians by time, which contained the bulk of my work, was closed. It helped me understand more the categorization process. Yes, the decision was to merge but the new categories I have created are either not limited to a single country or are in line with categories created by other editors.

I decided to restart because I was advised that the onus was on me to populate the categories I created. In fact, such action actually changed the mind of an editor who proposed deleting one of such categories in an CfD (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent). After that, I decided to create a couple of categories that I deemed were not controversial because it followed other editors creations as well. Category:Assassinated politicians by decade is a worldwide category which is yielding mostly more than the established consensus of at least 10 subcats or pages each. I created Category:Assassinated Burundian monarchs following the standard of Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality and looking existing categories like Category:Assassinated Moroccan monarchs which was not created by me.

I am spending hours mostly populating categories and have created just a fraction of those that I have populated. Then I think your criticism is not very objective and doesn't properly analyze my effort. Also, given that I have spend many hours in the categories, it is difficult to track every single category like the French politicians.

Can you also focus on the positive instead of just attacking my work? I welcome constructive criticism but I have seen uncalled for vitriol and uncollegiality, patronizing, in the discussions a few times (not saying necessarily this is the case in this thread, I clarify). If you notice something amiss, I welcome your input and I would work on improving things. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out also that most of the deletion notices you are seeing below this thread are when I started categorizing before the CfDs that educated me about the guidelines. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

About the 19th century I will at least start from the 1850s for the sake of continuity with the 20th century if it turns out to be not to pass my established aforementioned threshold. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1970s assassinated Pan-American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1970s assassinated Pan-American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd millennium assassinated North American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd millennium assassinated North American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960s assassinated North American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1960s assassinated North American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s assassinated North American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s assassinated North American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Assassinated North American mayors

A tag has been placed on Category:Assassinated North American mayors indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thinker78 (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:1960s assassinated Argentinian politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:1960s assassinated Argentinian politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd millennium assassinated Pan-American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd millennium assassinated Pan-American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st century assassinated North American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:21st century assassinated North American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st century assassinated politicians by continent

A tag has been placed on Category:21st century assassinated politicians by continent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed template, not empty. Thinker78 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Assassinated mayors by continent

A tag has been placed on Category:Assassinated mayors by continent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:21st century BC murdered monarchs

A tag has been placed on Category:21st century BC murdered monarchs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:22nd century BC murdered monarchs

A tag has been placed on Category:22nd century BC murdered monarchs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

New categories

Category:Assassinated politicians by decade has many small categories and is thus at risk of being cfd'd. I don't see anything wrong with Category:1950s assassinated politicians. You should use Petscan: a politician assassinated in the 1950s will be in Category:1950s deaths and Category:Assassinated politicians. This is what I mean; there are 40 listed in addition to the 2 you have found. You have to do this carefully article by article because Petscan results depend on the category tree being correct, which it isn't as editors put inclusions the wrong way round and add eponymous topic categories to set categories. The first 3 look like valid members. It is up to you to populate categories you make before moving on: other editors may have no interest in when people were assassinated. That is populate the 1950s, populate the 1960s, 70s, 80s etc. No-one will take them to cfd. You could then start with Category:19th-century assassinated politicians; petscan finds 165 of these so it is worth subcatting by decade (but not by year). NB Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel: that is not an assassination (added in your edits). — Oculi (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I don't know if you noticed the "under construction" templates in many of the "Assassinated politicians by decade", for example Category:1920s assassinated politicians. I finished populating Category:Assassinated governors (which only had one page) and now I am working in populating the decades. My plan is to include at least all decades that have at least 10 pages/subcats each. I am thinking in completing the centuries whose most decades have at least 10 pages/subcats each. For example, if x century has 6 categories with at least 10 pages each, I am planning on completing such century category. I have worked selected decades while I suspended creating cats but now that I am doing it I am populating them, working my way through Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. I am starting in letter A. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

But you are too ambitious. Category:Pages using Under construction with the placedby parameter contains an inordinate number of categories of yours (and in any case is for articles, not categories: "This template is for articles actively undergoing construction"). Please use petscan: I've put a list on Category talk:1920s assassinated politicians. You need to check that they are assassinations, possibly using chatbot. eg Albert Whitford (politician) looks like a murder to me. Oculi (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The template "Pages using Under construction with the placedby parameter" literally has a parameter for category pages.

I am now using Petscan as I didn't know how to use it properly before. Thanks for your example of use.

I think I will pass the extra verification if they were truly assassinated because it would exponentially increase the time it will take me to categorize. I may do it here and then at times. I am relying on the already categorized pages under Category:Assassinated politicians by nationality. If other editors thought they were assassinated then I am relying on them. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:1960s assassinated African politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:1960s assassinated African politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:1930s assassinated Costa Rican politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:1930s assassinated Costa Rican politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:1970s assassinated South American politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:1970s assassinated South American politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:16th century assassinated French politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:16th century assassinated French politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:18th century assassinated French politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:18th century assassinated French politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:19th century assassinated French politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:19th century assassinated French politicians 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. Oculi (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Assassination edits

You've been making a lot of edits adding people to various categories involving "assassinations", yet many of the articles are very clear that their deaths were not assassinations. A politician being killed does not automatically make the murder an assassination. An assassination is a targeted killing, usually for political purposes. Things like duels and being killed in battle (not an exhaustive list, just some examples I've reverted) do not meet this criteria. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkonesMickLoud I know there is a difference between murder and assassination but it can be complicated making that distinction in politicians. Also, the meaning or interpretation of the word assassination may vary from editor to editor. A fatal duel involving a politician may be characterized as assassination for instance. Also, the meaning or interpretation of the word assassination may vary from editor to editor. A fatal duel involving a politician may be characterized as assassination for instance. But according to the article assassination, it may be the murder of an important or notable person. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone killed accidentally during an assassination attempt on someone else is not an assassination either. I think I will get chatbot to argue for me at cfd. Why can't you start with the much larger Category:Assassinated people and use the articles already there (avoiding the need to edit articles or decide whether someone is a politician)? And just create and populate a few categories at a time rather than a whole string of them unpopulated? By continent would be the last thing to do. Oculi (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, a fatal duel involving two politicians isn't an assassination, it's a duel. See the Merrian-Webster definition of "assassination" (which the assassination article uses as a reference:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assassination

> murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons : the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader)

Some of the articles you've tagged with this meet this criteria, but many don't. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's go back to basics. Does the article, in the body of the text, call it an assassination and is it sourced? If so, categorisation is valid. If, on the other hand, it is merely the opinion of an editor, then it is not a valid categorisation and should be removed. (eg Adam Otterburn was in such a category but his article has no mention of assassin or assassination.) Oculi (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkonesMickLoud Unfortunate you didn't see my very detail reply beforehand that addressed precisely your comment. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I saw it, but I'm not reading a wall of text from a chat bot. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkonesMickLoud I did provide a brief summary though. Sigh. Anyway. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And it confirms what I already know. So why do I need to read it? SkonesMickLoud (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkonesMickLoud You don't and I don't suggest you do. But I kindly suggest you read the meaning of the words empathy and insight. Have a good day. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Duels

@SkonesMickLoud I followed up the issue about duels with an AI chatbot. In short, I initially reached the conclusion that a killing of a politician in a duel may be an assassination based solely on the lead of the article assassination. But after further investigation, namely a simple dictionary search in Merriam Webster that says its an attack of a sudden or secret nature, the chatbot reached the conclusion that a politician killed in a duel is not an assassination, and I agree.

Detailed discussion with chatbot

The following is the detailed discussion I had with the chatbot (in blue).

Logic question. Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political and military motives, or done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination". Premise 2: Politician Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel in he particpated because of political differences. Is the following conclusion correct "Politician Henry Wharton Conway was assassinated"?

No, the conclusion "Politician Henry Wharton Conway was assassinated" is not correct. While Henry Wharton Conway was killed, it was in a duel, which is not the same as an assassination. An assassination involves the deliberate killing of a prominent person for political, military, or other reasons, whereas a duel is a pre-arranged combat between two individuals. Therefore, the correct conclusion would be "Politician Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel.

Logic question. Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political and military motives, or done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination". Premise 2: Politician Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel in he particpated because of political differences. Is the following conclusion correct "Politician Henry Wharton Conway was assassinated"?

No, the conclusion "Henry Wharton Conway was assassinated" is not correct. While Conway was indeed killed and was a politician, his death occurred in a duel over political differences, which makes it a different type of killing than an assassination. Premise 1 defines assassination as a killing done for political and military motives, financial gain, revenge, desire for fame, or on a command by a military, security, insurgent, or secret police group. None of these reasons apply to Conway's death in a duel provoked by political differences.

Can you remake the logic premises and conclusion to include the definitions of both assassination and duel?

Certainly! Here is a new set of premises that includes definitions of both assassination and duel:

Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political and military motives, or done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination". Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel." Premise 3: Politician Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel in which he participated because of political differences. Conclusion: Politician Henry Wharton Conway was killed in a duel, but he was not assassinated, as the reasons for his death were a private quarrel and not political or military motives, financial gain, a desire for fame or notoriety, or a command from a military, security, insurgent, or secret police group.

Are you following proper rules of Logic in making 3 premises plus a conclusion?

Yes, I am following proper rules of logic in making 3 premises plus a conclusion. In logic and critical thinking, an argument consists of a set of premises that support a conclusion. Premises are statements offered as reasons or evidence for accepting a conclusion, while the conclusion is the claim being supported or inferred. An argument is considered valid if the premises provide strong support for the conclusion, meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. To evaluate whether an argument is valid, one must use logical principles and rules of inference to determine if the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Therefore, the use of three premises and a conclusion is one common way to make an argument in formal logic. Each premise should be relevant and necessary to support the conclusion and the conclusion should logically follow from the premises using appropriate rules of inference.

Analyze whether the conclusion based on the premises 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political and military motives, or done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination".

Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel."

Conclusion: A politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated.

The conclusion based on the premises 1 and 2 is not correct. While both premises provide relevant information that helps us understand the meanings of "assassination" and "duel," they do not support the conclusion that a politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated.

Premise 1 defines assassination as a killing that may be done for political and military motives, financial gain, revenge, desire for fame, or a command by a military, security, insurgent, or secret police group. None of these reasons apply to a duel fought to settle a private quarrel.

Premise 2 defines a duel as a prearranged combat between two persons usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel. The nature and purpose of a duel are distinct from that of an assassination.

Therefore, we cannot assume that a politician who gets killed in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated based on the premises 1 and 2. The conclusion is not logically derived from the premises, and it violates the definition of assassination provided in premise 1.

I believe you are mistaken because in the definition of duel in premise 2 it states "especially to settle a private quarrel." This doesn't precludes other causes for a duel, such as to avenge a grievance. In fact, to avenge a grievance is a type of private quarrel.

Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct that a grievance can be a type of private quarrel, and that the definition of duel in premise 2 does not exclude the possibility of a duel being fought to avenge a grievance.

However, the premise that a politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated still does not logically follow from the definitions given in premises 1 and 2. This is because the definition of assassination in premise 1 involves a set of specific circumstances and motivations surrounding the killing, none of which are present in a duel fought to avenge a grievance. In other words, the fact that a duel is fought to settle a private quarrel does not necessarily make it an assassination if it does not fulfill the specific motives and circumstances defining assassination mentioned in premise 1.

Therefore, based on the given premises, it would not be correct to conclude that a politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated.

I will reword the arguments. Analyze whether the conclusion based on the premises 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political and military motives, or done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination".

Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel, like to avenge a grievance."

Conclusion: A politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated.

Thank you for rewording the arguments. However, the conclusion based on the premises 1 and 2 is still not entirely correct.

While premise 2 has been revised to include the fact that a duel can be fought to avenge a grievance, the definition of assassination in premise 1 still involves specific circumstances and motives that do not necessarily apply to all cases of killing, including those in a duel.

It is possible for a politician to be killed in a duel fought to avenge a grievance, but for the killing not to be classified as an assassination because the specific motives and circumstances defining assassination mentioned in premise 1 are not present. Therefore, the conclusion that a politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated is not necessarily justified by the premises given.

In summary, while premise 2 has been revised to better support the conclusion, premise 1 still poses a problem for the argument, and the conclusion is not entirely correct.

I will reword the arguments. Analyze whether the conclusion based on the premises 1 and 2 is correct.

Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political, military, financial motives, a desire to avenge a grievance, a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination".

Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel, like a desire to avenge a grievance."

Conclusion: A politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated.

Thank you for rewording the arguments. While this version of the argument is more accurate than the previous one, the conclusion still does not logically follow from the premises.

In premise 1, it is stated that an assassination can be prompted by "a desire to avenge a grievance." However, it is important to note that in the case of a duel fought to avenge a grievance, both parties are typically consenting to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance. This is different from an assassination, which typically involves a surprise attack on an unwilling victim.

Therefore, while it is possible for a politician to be killed in a duel fought to avenge a grievance, it cannot be said that all such killings constitute assassinations because there are key differences between the motives and circumstances of a duel and an assassination.

In summary, while the revised premises are more accurate, the conclusion that a politician who gets killed participating in a duel to avenge a grievance is assassinated is not logically justified based on the premises given.

I believe you did not make a proper analysis because you added non-existent premises in my logical argument, specifically, "both parties are typically consenting to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance. This is different from an assassination, which typically involves a surprise attack on an unwilling victim."

I apologize if my previous response was unclear or unhelpful. You are correct in noting that I added additional information to the premises that was not present in the original wording you provided.

Upon reviewing your original argument, I see that the premises, as written, do allow for the possibility that a politician killed in a duel fought to avenge a grievance could be classified as an assassination. Premise 1 includes a broad range of motives for assassination, including a desire to avenge a grievance. Meanwhile, premise 2 describes a duel as a prearranged combat, which could include a situation where the duel is agreed upon in advance to settle a private quarrel, such as a grievance.

Therefore, based on these premises, it is reasonable to conclude that a politician who gets killed participating in a prearranged duel to avenge a grievance could be classified as an assassination. However, it is important to note that the classification of the killing as an assassination or not would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and motives involved, as well as the opinions of legal and political authorities.

I hope this response clarifies any confusion or misinterpretation on my part.

Can you rearrange my logical argument to include the information "in the case of a duel fought to avenge a grievance, both parties are typically consenting to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance. This is different from an assassination, which typically involves a surprise attack on an unwilling victim."

Certainly, here is a revised version of your logical argument that includes the additional information:

Premise 1: An assassination is "the killing of a prominent or important person, such as a politician" that may be prompted by "political, military, financial motives, a desire to avenge a grievance, a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination".

Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel, like a desire to avenge a grievance." In the case of a duel fought to avenge a grievance, both parties are typically consenting to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance.

Additional Information: This is different from an assassination, which typically involves a surprise attack on an unwilling victim.

Conclusion: While a politician killed in a duel fought to avenge a grievance could be considered an assassination based on the broad range of motives for assassination listed in premise 1, it is important to note that duels are prearranged combat where both parties typically consent to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance. This is different from an assassination, which typically involves a surprise attack on an unwilling victim. The classification of the killing as an assassination or not would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and motives involved.

I believe that my misunderstanding is based on the incomplete description of assassination I found on Wikipedia. Can you reword the logical arguments and reach a new conclusion with the following new information to be added in premise 1: "murder by sudden or secret attack".

Certainly, here's a revised version of your logical argument that includes the information you provided:

Premise 1: An assassination is "the murder by sudden or secret attack of a prominent or important person, such as a politician", and may be prompted by "political, military, financial motives, a desire to avenge a grievance, a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security, insurgent or secret police group's command to carry out the assassination".

Premise 2: A duel is "a prearranged combat between two persons, usually fought with deadly weapons according to an accepted code of procedure, especially to settle a private quarrel, like a desire to avenge a grievance." In the case of a duel fought to avenge a grievance, both parties are typically consenting to the combat, and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance.

Conclusion: A politician killed in a duel fought to avenge a grievance would not be considered an assassination, as duels are prearranged combat where both parties typically consent to the combat and the rules of the duel are agreed upon in advance. Additionally, assassinations involve murder by sudden or secret attack of a prominent or important person, such as a politician. While a duel fought to avenge a grievance could be considered violent, it does not meet the criteria for an assassination based on the sudden and secret nature of the attack. The classification of the killing as an assassination or not would ultimately depend on the specific circumstances and motives involved in the incident.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Category:Assassinated foreign politicians in China

Category:Assassinated foreign politicians in China is now empty. I removed Nima-odsor since he was an ethnic Mongol but a Chinese national. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Central American politicians by country has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated Central American politicians by country 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) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1930s assassinated Central American politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1930s assassinated Central American politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960s assassinated politicians by continent

A tag has been placed on Category:1960s assassinated politicians by continent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:1960s assassinated Nigerian politicians has been nominated for deletion

Category:1960s assassinated Nigerian politicians has been nominated for deletion. 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. Oculi (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Putting categories into multiple parents

Hi, part of the difficulty with your work is that you are creating many categories within only one parent. E.g. Category:Assassinated African heads of state was only placed in Category:Assassinated heads of state by continent. If you had looked around for other parents, you would have found within Category:Heads of state by continent that the other applicable parent is Category:Heads of state in Africa. That would have helped you to name the categories to match the existing hierarchy, i.e. using "in Africa" rather than "African".

It would also mean that you populate your own new hierarchies more fully. Some parents have been deleted when they became empty after deletion of one sub-cat; but I later noticed that there were other existing sub-categories which could have been in them… you just had not put them into the parent.

So, when you create a category, think about what different parents intersect to form that one. Find out what they are called if they exist, follow those naming patterns, and use them as parents. Hope this helps! – Fayenatic London 08:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london Thanks for the guidance! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:7th-century assassinated politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:7th-century assassinated politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1910s assassinated French politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1910s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1930s assassinated French politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1930s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1970s assassinated French politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1970s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1980s assassinated French politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1980s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1990s assassinated French politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:1990s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd-millennium assassinated Nigerian politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium assassinated Nigerian politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok Thinker78 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2nd-millennium assassinated African politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:2nd-millennium assassinated African politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Thinker78/Archives!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Zippybonzo thanks for the invitation! But given a bad experience I had applying for a permission before, I won't be applying. If the new page patrol team is interested in my services, they can review my edits and make a determination whether to include me or not and extend a confirmed invitation to join the team without applying. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2000s murders in Palestine

A tag has been placed on Category:2000s murders in Palestine indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Populated. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope that this kitten brightens your day by 100,000,000%!!!

Odin&Sleipnir (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Odin&Sleipnir (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Koavf

Hi Thinker78. Oh, I understood perfectly. Please do not disrupt the encyclopedia to illustrate a point. Thanks, FASTILY 00:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fastily I did it on jest but ok. Keep calm. Do not take it too seriously. Remember that Wikipedia is a hobby [...] Keep a good community spirit up and make good edits as a community. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Template parameter order

Hi, regarding this edit: it makes no difference. When a template's parameters are all named, the order that they are provided is immaterial - the template code looks for them by name, not by position. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Signature

Thanks for pointing out that my signature isn't legible User:Moxy. I don't see that issue from my monitor, I wonder why it appears like that for you? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This also happens for a few others for me..... there's about a half dozen other people that I see this problem with....User:Sdkb is one that I can think of off the top of my head... so perhaps it's something in the coding. Moxy- 01:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to fix whatever the issue is, but without replicability, there's not much chance of bug fixing. Presumably some browser setting or other configuration element is causing the issue for you, Moxy. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It only happens on my Android device.. on my desktop they just look over sized. I'm aware of a few others that see the same thing.... with us trying to fix it on our end to no avail. Not a big deal as they're all different colors. Moxy- 02:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you decide to open a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) you can ping me if you want because I am interested as to what the cause is. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing policy and guidelines

Just a quick note. We should be careful when quoting other policy pages, because that can increase the overhead when that text may be updated on one page, then it would need to be updated everywhere it's quoted. And I can tell you, that does not often happen. It's usually (though to be fair, not always) better to use quotes sparingly, if possible.

And while I will agree that there are some significant blocks of text on that page, we should do what we can to try to be as concise as possible, for readability and understandability reasons.

All that said, I think the text in the #Sexuality section on that page could use some wording updates per some recent RfCs and various guideline updates. Might be worth looking at. - jc37 05:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think quoting relevant policy is a good practice to avoid interpretation issues but I certainly agree that conciseness, readability and understandability are important. In fact I regularly work on making first sentences more concise. I will address the change of the guideline in the relevant talk page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Trump trim

Hello Thinker78. Thanks for your efforts on the Trump page. I was puzzled to see you place numerals before each user's !votes in a thread you started there. I've never seen that done in other polls and I don't understand what purpose it might serve beyond what's accomplished by the intial bolding each editor already placed there. Please undo the numbers. In addition to being pointless, it also gives an impression of IDHT and OWN in that thread, which I am sure is not your intention. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a survey. I placed the numbers simply as a visual aid for editors including me who want to conduct a rapid count. Not that outcomes are determined by the number of votes but it helps in the process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Got it. Have you ever seen this done before, or is this a new idea? SPECIFICO talk 05:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have seen it and I don't know if it's a new idea. I may have seen it but don't remember. I like efficiency and therefore I try new things that can help improve things. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Metapedian

@Ingenuity, regarding your warning to DestinyPegasus, although I understand the reasoning behind not using Wikipedia as a social network, the key is whether the project is being harmed or not. If it's not, then I would also point out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles."

DestinyPegasus may be a metapedian in the making, a special kind of editor who focus on the internal workings of Wikimedia projects, including guidelines and policies, and the social side of the Wikimedia movement, rather than editing articles and related content [...] Metapedians are often seen as the "social gadflies" of Wikimedia projects, doing honourable work and civic duties: giving out Barnstars, having general conversations on Talk Pages, taking part in deletion discussions and contributing largely in Wiki-Associations and places where discussion may be required.

Let's not discourage an editor from being a metapedian. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your question

Yoickes. Responding here to hopefully be less hurtful to the user in question with 4:00 am frankness. They were spamming some sort of conspiracy theory nonsense with serious BLP concerns. Looks like they continued at ANI with it. And in the unblock request. He also made some interesting edits on at least one other BLP. So, indef is not infinite. They just needed to address the reasons for the block convincingly. Hopefully, this nade sense and was helpful. Back to bed, and hopefully sleep -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Deepfriedokra. I hope you had nice sleep. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sep 23

Read wp:soap and wp:npa, implying (however indirectly) that a page is edited by the CIAS (thereby implying the editors who edit it work for the CIA) is not acceptable. Also read wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven If you have your interpretations that is on you. Read WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Also, read the news article from a reliable source that I added to the discussion. It is simply relevant to the topic of the CIA and it is something that happened. I simply found it in the article of List of controversies of the CIA and decided to share it. Therefore, it is acceptable to add such information. If you think things that may or may not be happening "again" and get irritated about it for some reason, as I said that's on you. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED unduly. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not relevant to say the CIA is editing a page, as that implies the editors who edit the page work for the CIA. My last word, this is now a warning, if you continue to imply that articles are bing censored by the CIA I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I already pointed out the civility policy and specifically pointed out the clause about ill-considered accusations of impropriety, in your talk page. I also pointed out that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

I don't appreciate you coming to my talk page to accuse me of anything only because I shared a news story to a discussion. You have the right to get all mad if you want but it makes me wonder why are you so irritated that I shared that article. I already told you why I shared the article. I encourage you to go to a noticeboard or go make your report with your complaint because I consider it absurd. Your little attempt at coercion into unduly silence an editor is completely uncalled for and against Wikipedia guidance as I pointed out. I will request from you a little more respect for a fellow editor and to follow Wikipedia guidance. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

He's right though. Your linking to that story could have no conceivable use for improving the Article, and so the implication is that Wikipedia editors are working for the CIA. Your "it makes me wonder why are you so irritated" compounds the problem (ironically while invoking AGF). This tactic is reminiscent of controversial GMO pages in the past where problem editors kept dropping hints about Monsanto payments and undisclosed COIs. Remember, the community is WP:NOTDUMB so, a word to the wise: it was behaviour that got a lot of those problem editors blocked/banned. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, I was trying to reply to the comment, "An unnamed CIA operative, "alleged that the CIA "offered six analysts significant monetary incentives to change their position on COVID-19's origin.", Which the CIA (in effect) denies." Basically I was trying to show the plausibility of the referenced information because the CIA has committed wrongdoings in the past. To do that, I visited List of controversies of the CIA, which is where I stumbled on the information that irks Slatersteven.

In 2007, the now defunct database Wikiscanner revealed that computers from the CIA had been used to edit articles on the English Wikipedia, including the Iraq War article in 2003, and the article on former CIA executive director William Colby. A spokeswoman for Wikipedia said in response that the changes may violate the encyclopedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. CIA spokesman George Little said that he could not confirm if CIA computers were used to make the changes, claiming that "the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly."

I was actually a bit surprised on finding that info (although not surprised by the action), and I impulsively shared it and highlighted it, without giving it much thought rather than wow, if my memory serves correctly.

Now, regarding "implications", I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. I haven't actually thought about the CIA editing the page but I have had concerns of other sort of organizations. Conflicts of interest editing happens chronically in Wikipedia. That is an undeniable fact. As I indicated to Slatersteven, I am planning to raise my concerns maybe in Village Pump.

I still find the attempts to silence me outright over the topic concerning. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No one has tried to silence, you were just asked to to treat others with the same AGF you demand. And (yet again) you are implying that editors have a COI, you are assuming bad faith, and that violates wp;agf. Either that or you need to stop making implications of COI you do not, in fact, believe exist. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume good faith but you simply have adopted an unreasonable and illogical position.

• First, I am not accusing any given specific editor of conflict of interest.
• Second, you raised issue because I shared a reliable source finding regarding CIA with other editors in a thread about the CIA, blaming me for your own perception and imagination of "implied" stuff. If anything, because it is a covid page, you could interpret it as off-topic. But again, it is a thread about the CIA and claims about it.
• Third, conflict of interest violations chronically is an issue in Wikipedia. If I say that conflict of interest happens in general that is simply a reflection of reality.
• Fourth, now that I think about it, if a reliable source evidenced that there was editing by the CIA in Wikipedia, nothing guarantees it never happened again or that is not happening again. Therefore, even if I were to say that there is a possibility however small that the CIA might be editing in Wikipedia, it is simply a reflection of what already happened in Wikipedia. You shouldn't confuse accusations against specific editors with general expressions of possibilities based on past situations but not targeting any specific editor.
• Fifth, origins of covid is a highly politicized issue and a topic of global concern. Many governments around the world have expressed loud calls to contain misinformation and disinformation. Wikipedia is in my opinion one of the top sources of information for regular people around the world. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that some people aligned with said governments might want to drive the narrative one way or the other.
• Sixth, Censorship of Wikipedia is a thing that has resulted in government officials trying to remove information from Wikipedia pages, even threatening, persecuting, and jailing Wikipedians.

  • In September 2020, two Wikipedia volunteer administrators were arrested on the same day: Osama Khalid was sentenced to 32 years in prison while Ziyad al-Sofiani was sentenced to eight years, according to Smex, a Lebanese NGO to advance self-regulating information societies in the Arab-speaking world, and Democracy for the Arab World Now. A subsequent investigation by the Wikimedia Foundation identified 16 users who seemed to routinely engage in conflict-of-interest editing—reportedly including spying for the Saudi government.

  • Even in the Western Hemisphere, an intelligence agency in France threatened an administrator to have a page removed or be arrested.

Therefore, thinking that there might be instances of governments and others editing with conflict of interest is not only reasonable but something any editor should have in mind. As you can see, I hope you realize how sensitive this issue is and that I am not going to get arbitrarily silenced if I can do something about it. Thinker78 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Seeking editing guidance

Hello, I'm trying to edit the Feldenkrais Method article and have been reverted by Bon courage with terse reason and no conversation. I see from their Talk page, this is an ongoing issue. I'm trying to be helpful, I am learning, I'm not into drama and I don't appreciate feeling bullied by another editor. I am hoping to improve the article, but there seems to be people blocking improvements by quoting policies at each other rather than constructive dialog.

I added my proposal to the Talk page.

I see you have been posting about disciplinary actions. What are your thoughts on how to get some work done? D1doherty (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello @D1doherty. Thanks for reaching out. You may try the dispute resolution process. I will try to check out the page but I am involved in some situations right now and I need to find a bit of relaxation first. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I’m seeing a small breakthrough with some others chiming in, so that is encouraging as I approach a tricky article. WP:BRD is their advice.

I hope you get some time to chill. D1doherty (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Hi
In Talk:Conspiracy theory#Article is poorly written and argumentative, I put some interesting links. Get them before somebody else reverts!
Thanks
2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at:
https://inciclopedia.org/wiki/Conspiranoico
This is a parody, but it is full of common sense. You can use Google Translate to read it.
Thanks
2.138.45.126 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I am Spanish and I have written in the Spanish wikipedia in the article "Teoría conspirativa". I have posted quotes from various authors. Furthermore, I would like to put these quotes also in the English wikipedia. But I think it would be reversed. I think it is necessary for the English wikipedia to recover the section called "Controversy". Thus quotations from such authors could be inserted. Thank you.
2.138.31.60 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Assassinated Jamaican politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:Assassinated Jamaican politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Munch!

Zitian has eaten your {{subst:welcome-belated}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Z!t!@n«T@1k» 16:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Enjoy! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Behzad Qasemi (Hacktivist)

Hello, Thinker78,

This page was speedy deleted as it was an orphaned talk page. I just wanted to let you know that the editor you were addressing your comment to is globally blocked and wouldn't have been able to respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz, per WP:SPEEDY, Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors I was not notified beforehand. Why? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, why the diff of my edit disappeared? Was it oversighted? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz, per WP:REFUND, I request undeletion of the diff of my edit so that I can place it elsewhere. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already got a refund of my comment. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated politicians by time has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated politicians by time 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) 05:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated politicians by type has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated politicians by type 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) 18:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated heads of state by type has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated heads of state by type 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) 17:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Garfield

I would request that you self revert your category addition until you have a consensus for it. That two editors reverted it is a clear sign that there isn't consensus for it. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@331dot I forgot to leave a non-automated edit summary. The new category I added is according to the objections you and the other editor made. It is not the same category. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm still not certain that merits a category, but at least it is accurate, which was my main concern. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have my doubts that's a useful category, because assassination implies killing because of being an official or other leader, and a former leader, especially at that level, is not seen as worth the killing. No one gets assassinated because of being the former state rep from Pohunk County. Therefore, the assassination is probably for some other reason. But I don't get involved in deletion discussions much. Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Wehwalt. Thanks for your comment. When you stated, "But I don't get involved in deletion discussions much", do you mean you just wanted to make this comment and don't want to get involved in further discussion or that generally you avoid deletion discussions but otherwise are interested in this case? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It means that if there's an attempt to delete the category, I don't plan on getting involved. I say that because I'm not convinced this is a useful category for the reasons I stated. Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Assassination implies killing because of being an official or other leader". I understand your point but my reply is that

1. when someone is assassinated, many times the motives are not known.
2. the person may have been assassinated for another office but the category is a set of former officials who were assassinated, regardless of the motive.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I have some concerns about civility and disruption in responses I have received in a dispute with M.Bitton. Please check the threads, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question about RfC sections and Talk:North Africa#RfC about the lead sentence. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You should not be using the admin help template for this. If you have a complaint about another user's conduct that you believe requires administrative action, WP:ANI is that-a-way.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Can you provide a link of the guidance your advice is based on about the use of the template? Plus I would say that it is a less drastic action than ANI. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for an admin. You got one. He told you what he thinks you should do. If you want to ask the question of multiple admins, you can take it to ANI, or even WP:AN. I have nothing more to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Per WP:ADMINACCT,

editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

I read the template guidance before using it, so I don't know where your advice that I shouldn't use it for this comes from. Please share with me a link to the guidance that advices editors not to use the template for this. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious you have been wasting your time with that editor. They don't care about Wikipedia behavior PAGs. The broader issue is that, over all, and except for the few most extreme cases, the Wikipedia community doesn't care about Wikipedia behavior PAGs. It's part of why I'm semi-retired; I couldn't handle certain things like that any more. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that the civility policy is treated like an essay. Administrators don't seem to care about it much, in general, in my experience. I have been even treated in another case some time ago to a tirade of f bombs simply for civilly pointing out guidance and no one said zip.

I mean on the bright side, I am advocate of free speech and if it wasn't because most people who engage in uncivil behavior don't appear to care for free speech one bit, I wouldn't mind getting insulted or treated to a cocktail of f,g, h or whatever words, however painful at times that might be. But I am also a methodical and logical person and if I see there is a civility policy I would expect it to be enforced or if not, deprecated. I believe in liberty, liberty being a balance between the different rights of different people. But I oppose chaos. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I would expect it to be enforced or if not, deprecated. Yeah. Your expectations are too high. You're seeing the downside of self-governance; the average editor couldn't govern a lemonade stand. Might as well try harder to accept the reality or, as I did, semi-retire. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, we tend to expect admins to act like cops; "law enforcement". They can't do that (much) under our system of self-governance, which doesn't grant them that much power. If a cop knew he could be subjected to days or weeks of uncontrolled second-guessing and criticism from the general public for a disorderly conduct arrest, criticism that he was not allowed to simply ignore, how many disorderly conduct arrests do you suppose would be made? What would be the effect on society? I think the answers are clear enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, I think this can de-escalate pretty easily. M.Bitton tells me that their main concern is "[Thinker78] keep[s] mentioning me or ... leaving unwanted comments on my talk page (while refusing to take their so-called concerns to ANI)". So, just avoiding any more of that should avoid inspiring another round of conflict-extension from the other editor, and without making any ANI action needed, which might not come out favorable for either party. (Lest this sound one-sided, Thinker78 and I had a discussion on my own talk page, in which I thought some of M.Bitton's behavior was intemperate and unconstructive as well; I'm basically suggesting both parties back away from each other. The dispute at the center of all this is an RfC that is still open and which might still produce usable results if not mired further in a two-editor personality conflict.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Very pragmatic. Forgive me for going meta, I can't help it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The guy is following me around assuming I am talking about them when I edit pages without even being about them. I simply edit when I have the chance to read pages, which I did. Although certainly I sought assistance about their conduct.

About ANI, the person doesn't make my schedule tbh, they can be waiting all they want until I decide (within a reasonable timeframe) when to file the complaint. But you have a point about unfavorable outcomes considering among other things how no administrator has even said anything to the person about telling me how "pathetic doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing here".

I don't understand though why make it a behavioral parity between Bitton and me though. Unless you are erring on the side of free speech, which I would respect and maybe from that angle you could hit a sensitive string with me that make me think things from a different perspective.

But considering you were telling me how I could have irritated the editor by mentioning the disruption policy (which I did because the guy had already irritated me with their lack of in my opinion collegiality), I don't understand why you don't see I am irritated by being treated with such crass contempt. I mean if you see my edit history you hardly will find me at all at ANI in all my years as active editor. That should give an idea of how serious I think this has become for me.

Maybe the editor has some life issues and that's why they responded with such aggressiveness, I don't know. But my life is not easy at the moment either. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I will toss a coin because I am conflicted between my principles against censorship and my desire for justice. Peace is to disengage, shield is to file the ANI complaint. Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the result is Peace. I will disengage. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is never absolute, even at WP. But ANI would be a further waste of your time. ANI is broken because the underlying system is broken and has been broken since inception. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Killings of politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:Killings of politicians 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. Mason (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:1970s assassinated politicians by continent has been nominated for merging

Category:1970s assassinated politicians by continent 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. Mason (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:2000s assassinated politicians by continent has been nominated for merging

Category:2000s assassinated politicians by continent 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. Mason (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thinker78 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians' topics has been nominated for deletion

Category:Politicians' topics has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Heads of government topics has been nominated for deletion

Category:Heads of government topics has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Heads of state topics has been nominated for deletion

Category:Heads of state topics has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former subnational legislators has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated former subnational legislators 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. Mason (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated former national legislators 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. Mason (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Ottoman politicians has been nominated for renaming

Category:Assassinated Ottoman politicians has been nominated for renaming. 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. Mason (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussing. Thinker78 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Block of 99.196.130.183

Main page: User talk:99.196.130.183 § November 2023

@ScottishFinnishRadish I don't know if I am missing something but the ip seems to have only one contribution (unless there was oversight) and only asked a question, a very pointy, controversial, and seemingly accusatory question but a question. I don't understand the motive for the block. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. An IP showing up to Make personal attacks with their only edit is pure disruption and harassment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The ip had a concern and asked a question regarding their concerns. Yes, their question was accusatory in nature but it was a question regarding the accusation. Questioning itself in general is not disruption and the ip should have been answered instead of blocked, in my opinion.

Per WP:NOTCENSORED,

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

Although it continues with, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted),

per WP:NPLT,

In handling apparent legal threats, users should seek to clarify the poster's intention, explain the policy, and ask them to remove the threat. That users are involved in a legal dispute with each other is not a reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia.

If even a perceived legal threat is not a reason to block, I don't know why you felt the need to block for a question. When we consider controversial questions to be disruptive to the point to block and suppress people questioning, I think there are deeper issue that should be seriously pondered about.

You introduced the reason of disruption, can you point out the specific text you have in mind you believe is relevant to this case?

You may be wondering why my interest in this case. Censorship is one topic of interest of mine and I was watching Specifico's page, where ip editor posted. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is about content, not personal attacks, and NLT is about legal threats, not personal attacks. Any editor making personal attacks against another can be blocked. If a new account or an IP with no history shows up on an editors talk page to make clear personal attacks then they are generally blocked.

If this was a civilly phrase question rather than a clear diatribe account an editor of propaganda that would be fine, but that's not what it was. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish NOTCENSORED is a principle, not necessarily just related to content. The spirit of the guidance needs to be taken into consideration. But to be honest, as you can see in my talk page, sometimes I get accusations, some of which do make me feel irritated, frustrated, or even down. Sometimes I do need to take a day off. So I can understand very much the desire to block someone for disparaging an editor.

But on the other hand, if we see past the too passionate post, we see that it is a question, a question that is best answered instead of just suppressed. After all, a simple explanation can ring a bell or can mollify an editor who got exasperated by an unexpected revert and who has ideas of ideological censorship or other stuff in Wikipedia.

Now, if the editor becomes uncivil and starts or continues saying very rude stuff like pathetic doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing here or accusations without basis, then I would understand if you admonish them about violations of the WP:NPA and civility policies. Because treating fellow editors like that certainly can be very harmful and in the receiving end even painful. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Btw, why WP:CROSS-POST? Thinker78 (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish? Thinker78 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The cross post was too get the conversation off the talk page of an IP that has most likely already moved on. The rest is a bunch of statements, so I'm really not sure what response you're looking for. I blocked an IP with no other edits from a range I've seen similar politically related harassment from for making personal attacks to prevent further disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless you had other concerns, I think it would have been more appropriate to leave this discussion at the ip talk page, instead of duplicating it or splitting it. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians' deaths due to animal attacks has been nominated for merging

Category:Politicians' deaths due to animal attacks 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) 06:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians' deaths due to natural disasters has been nominated for merging

Category:Politicians' deaths due to natural disasters 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. Mason (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians' accidental deaths has been nominated for merging

Category:Politicians' accidental deaths 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. Mason (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians killed in duels has been nominated for merging

Category:Politicians killed in duels 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. Mason (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Politicians' deaths from disease has been nominated for deletion

Category:Politicians' deaths from disease has been nominated for deletion. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:20th-century assassinated Asian politicians has been nominated for merging

Category:20th-century assassinated Asian politicians 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. Mason (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. --Thinker78 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Improving the overcategorization editing guidelines

While I don't favor the RFC to bring back some form of Smallcat, I've obviously thought a lot about that edition guidlein and am open to other changes. For instance, I contributed in support of WP:MFN (although Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw did the heavy lifting there) and I'm potentially open to expanding WP:NARROWCAT to address works by artist. If you explain the problem you're looking to solve, maybe we can work together on WP:OC.

Are there some recent CFD discussions that you think should have gone differently maybe? - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect Yes, I think editors are deleting or merging categories arbitrarily only for the quantity of entries. I had added an example in the recently closed discussion about my proposal, in the threaded discussion section. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable

Regarding this: I don't know what you're trying to do. The reply you linked was perfectly reasonable. I would even consider it restrained. I think you need to move on instead of reviving an old discussion to get in the final word against someone who hasn't edited in over a year. Your general editing pattern concerns me. Things like the discussion at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 47#Not a sentence fragment (his interpretation of your proposal is perfectly reasonable), your reply at #User talk:Koavf (reads as patronizing), and ponderings about tags at User talk:Koavf#October 2023 (idiosyncratic interpretation) are bizarre. Urve (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I advise you to take a good reading at the civility policy. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Urve is being perfectly civil, and trying to give you constructive criticism. I'd encourage you to assume good faith, rather than suggesting they're being uncivil. Mason (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison lol. You got it wrong. The reason I pointed to the civility policy is because they think Protonk's reply to me was "perfectly reasonable" and even "restrained". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you should take Urve's advice. Mason (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison Honestly, I think you shouldn't patronize people in Category for Discussions. We have had a few disputes, I don't know how to take your advise, specially when you are supporting an editor who thinks f bombs and rudeness are reasonable and measured ways to reply. In fact, because of these reasons, I don't think you provide good advice in this case. Thanks anyways. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

As I stated before, it was not my intent to be patronizing. I apologize that I made you feel that way (like not as in a half ass, i'm sorry my behavior had consequences if that makes sense). I appreciate you explaining how you would have preferred a discussion on your talk page, which is what I was attempting to do (below). But regardless, it's clear that I did not have all the context when hoping in to the discussion, and took Urve's post at face value. Mason (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Urve. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. This follows a long series of other recent inappropriate behavior on discussion pages, including recently at User talk:HouseBlaster and User talk:Protonk; please cease all personalized comments about other editors posthaste. JBL (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I will just point out that @JBL has a history with me for some time now and I am no fan of their approach to discussions. We had a dispute a while ago and I started a thread on their talk page, titled, Please read how consensus work.

In addition, the user requested me not to post in their talk page, so no idea why the user is coming to my talk page to start things with false accusations against me. JayBeeEll, if you don't want me to post at your talk page, don't post at mine either. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

I saw an old category you made about Category:1940s assassinated French politicians. I think that grouping by nationality is much more helpful for decades, rather than continent/country set up that you've been doing. I think if you're going to continue to diffuse assassinations by decade, I suggest focusing on nationality-based subcategories rather than continents. Instead the folks who don't have a critical mass for their own category, can just remain in the main decade category. Mason (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"I think that grouping by nationality is much more helpful for decades, rather than continent/country set up that you've been doing." Example? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:1940s assassinated French politicians is more helpful than Category:1980s assassinated politicians in Europe. Mason (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

See the note below. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison Just to clarify, I also think that decade/nation or nationality combination is good in many cases. In fact, I created a few months ago the Category:Assassinated American politicians by decade but it got deleted after the CfD Assassinated American county and local politicians by time. Then I consulted Marcocapelle as you can see in the link I shared but they were not welcoming the idea of other nationalities either. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Check the discussion User talk:Marcocapelle#2000s assassinated politicians by nationality (03:27, 25 July 2023). Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in South America has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in South America has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in North America has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in North America has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Europe has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Europe has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Asia has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Asia has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Africa has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated former national legislators in Africa has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:1990s assassinated politicians in transcontinental Eurasia has been nominated for merging

Category:1990s assassinated politicians in transcontinental Eurasia 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. Mason (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated politicians in transcontinental Eurasia has been nominated for deletion

Category:Assassinated politicians in transcontinental Eurasia has been nominated for deletion. 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. Mason (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

World War I

Hello there

Thanks for your excellent work on gaining a consensus on the lead. It is much appreciated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Your very welcome. Best regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated Caribbean monarchs has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated Caribbean monarchs 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. Mason (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated monarchs by time has been nominated for merging

Category:Assassinated monarchs by time 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. Mason (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:20th-century assassinated politicians by continent

A tag has been placed on Category:20th-century assassinated politicians by continent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

ok Thinker78 (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)