Please note the following guidelines for my talkpage: DO watch or pay attention to my talk page. If contacted here, I will reply here to avoid a divided conversation. Likewise, if I start a conversation on your talk page, and you attempt to divide it, I will cross-post my original statement here and reply here. DO sign your posts with ~~~~ - it makes it far easier to determine who added a comment and when. DO respect the banner below and do not ask for aid in those topic areas. DO NOT discuss FlaggedRevs at all. I will delete all such messages on sight. This includes discussion of Reviewer-related topics. (See the banner beneath, too.) DO NOT ask me to review administrator actions - As of July 11, 2010 I do not have that power. DO NOT nominate me for adminship - I will automatically reject all such requests. Likewise, DO NOT give me reviewer rights. Drink the beer you yourself brewed. DO NOT, if you are an administrator, protect this talk page. We have an abuse filter for a reason. Use it. DO NOT use any slurs whatsoever - I will delete the comment and all further ones from you off of my talk page.

This user will not work in any of the following areas of Wikipedia: -Any article under any iteration of FlaggedRevisions (Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages) -Any area directly connected to a real-world ethno-political conflict (e.g. Arab-Israeli conflict, Tibetan independence movement) -Religion (including atheism-related pages) -Politics -Topic areas that are or have been at some point under ArbCom or community-authorised sanctions (e.g. Homeopathy, Bogdanov Affair) Any requests for aid in these areas will be deleted on sight.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Thanks for your answer re: Monty Hall. Got it. --LMMcC (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm poking around on Meta trying to figure out where that RfC is going to take place but not sure I'm figuring out what to watchlist over there. Can you give me a pointer? Thanks! --valereee (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

m:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019. More a consultation than an RfC, but still. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --valereee (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gad, how time flies. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 18:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow Versions. Since you had some involvement with the Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow Versions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been viciously attacked by one of the members of the R&B group H-Town via their Wikipedia page and I noticed that any revisions I've made have been changed by you or other moderators or admins. However nothing has been done about the perso, DinoFan92, who keeps making edits and putting up false information. He has also put up sections with my full name. I've noticed that he has also deleted entire sections without penalty but when I did the same thing due to his harassment of me, my IP temporarily got blocked. I would like to know what's going on.

EmpressDivine04 (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was the source that was originally used for Keven's death before all the edit warring happened: https://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/H-Town-s-Dino-Conner-R-B-artist-dies-at-28-2084449.php Not sure about it's reliability about the events leading to the death or whether that needs to be in the article. Death part seems reliable though given there is an obit: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/houstonchronicle/obituary.aspx?n=keven-conner-dino&pid=777461 TelosCricket (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank'ee. I'll ask about those sources, and add them if they get a clean bill of health from the usual helpers. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} or Jéské Couriano. I'm not sure what you have against Hadrian. (Who knew people in northern England and Scotland could learn to climb a wall?) Besides it was Trajan that had the column. Anyway I'll try CliffNotes (though I am only remotely acquainted with such, do they use bullet points?):

• I have been editing Wikipedia, I guess going on my twelfth year. I think the contributions which I used to make, and am willing to continue to make, can no longer continue under the current environment of new article creation. Contributions include numerous articles and overall organization of Chinese poetry, Japanese poetry, and a start on Chinese mythology topics. I am asking for help because for the first time I really need it, and I am ignorant of most Wikipedia functionality other than reading or editing articles.

• I have specifically been subjected to bullying by User:Hzh, and would like some sort of support and help in this regard.

• I would like to see some valuable reforms in the New article review process. As an experienced editor in the area of new articles, I would like to contribute in a positive manner towards this. I think it would be useful to Wikipedia for me to share or discuss this in the appropriate forum or fora (although what these would be, I have no idea). However, if Wikipedia will not listen and respond to the issues of its editors, it is likely to stagnate. I would hate to see that. I have enjoyed editing Wikipedia, sometimes, and feel it has been a contribution toward making the world a better place.

+CliffNotes, Dcattell (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add it on article for me because other biased editior do not allowing me to do

It shares a harsh relation with Tablighi jamaat because Tablighi jamaat is an offshoot of deviant deobandi sect which disapproves the Saint veneration[1] Maizbhandariya (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] for above stated sentence Maizbhandariya (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, for two reasons. First, the book has told me I have hit the viewing limit (likely becvause it was also brought up in the AfD). 2, I suspect there's more than an academic interest here, and I do not reward mercenaries. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 07:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are amusing places to hide rudeness in plain sight. Yes, I read the note. Now please pull your horns in and deal with me with politeness. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for pinging the India-related noticeboard about the AfD. I was about to do so myself when I saw you already had. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 10:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be the best thing to do. There is no certainty that they can resolve this, but it is the best chance Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If anyone can pull out sources, they're the best-equipped to do so. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed lots of references from the article Prakash Neupane as a bad source or trash source. I restored everything which you removed from the article cause I think like you've no knowledge about notability as you removed The Diplomat and Asia Times as trash source. On what basis those are trash source? I don't have any question regarding other sources. Can you explain? Owlf 05:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Diplomat source's coverage of him consists of a name-drop and a sound-bite from him and does not discuss him in any real depth. The Asia Times source includes lyrics from one of his songs and is thus copyright infringement. Did you even read the sources before restoring them? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 05:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention you also restored content I removed for having no source what-so-ever. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 05:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read the coverage of him in The Diplomat it has been discussed about the whole Nepali hip-hop community and about the musicians for which he has been covered and in Asia times he is widely covered and being a Nepali Wikipedia editor I saw that the author has translated lyrics but not and doesn't fall under copyright infringement. Owlf 06:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And about his appearances on Nepal Television & Radio Kantipur it's available on Youtube. I know youtube is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia but Televisions and radios don't publish article they broadcast it. Owlf 06:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube actually is usable as a source, under specific conditions (Produced by a news agency and uploaded by that news agency to its own channel). There is nothing that forbids citing audiovisual news sources, and in fact we have multiple citation templates specifically for it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 06:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jéské Couriano. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 01:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't expect User:Cabejr will guess they can find any reply to their question in the edit summary space, especially after the question has been deleted (special:diff/973537127). May be you could simply add your answer below the question (instead of deleting it), just 'to avoid a divided conversation'...? Posting at OP's talk page may work as well. --CiaPan (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question was posted in two areas on Oshwah's talk page, and based on his contributions, plus the fact that automated translation is generally not 100% legible to a native speaker, I'm not sure how helpful a message on his talk page would be. This is someone who might be more at home on es.wp, not here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, at the Sushant Singh Rajput's talk page, Grant's responses are starting to feel fishy to me. They say Well I’m here to change cause of death from suicide (which is somebody’s opinion) to “ Asphyxia due to hanging” but has also said the only official statement came from police which says it’s suicide. To me that’s the only acceptable facts. Here you've been accused of being contradictory and yet Grant appears to be simultaneously arguing for inclusion of suicide and for exclusion of suicide, meanwhile making profound suggestions like I would suggest to keep an open mind for future and let the investigation unfold the details when we've already indicated the article would be updated as new information developed. They've also said things like I see that you’re passionate about this topic, which feels provocative. While it's possible they are totally oblivious about who made these determinations about Rajput's death (medical examiners vs. Wikipedians?) I do feel like they might be trying to get under our skins by trolling, or possibly it's just a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation. I've opted not to respond to their last comment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's wilful ignorance. I suspect Grant is a fan; his responces are about on par with arguments that stans have been making on the talk page and in -en-help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now in his most recent response he's dialed it back to not wanting it in the infobox, which was his initial position. I'm confused. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, it might be worth converting the "So, what will be in the infobox?" discussion to a proper RFC to get wider input. I don't mind being the minority opinion between you and NedFausa, but I don't like that the talk page is currently unprotected, we have an obvious problem with SPAs who have an agenda, and there is a lack of input from other Wikipedians familiar with BLPs. Just a thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about doing that? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NM, found out how. I've added the RFC tag. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I've invited members of WikiProject India here. Hopefully people less jaded than I will offer fresh perspectives. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have added {rfc|bio} tag at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, please change wording in your intro from "informal request for comment" to "formal request for comment" so as not to confuse anyone. NedFausa (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing your userbox about the 09 fundraising banner, I spent the last 30 minutes reading a whole bunch about that particular fundraiser. Was it the "Wikipedia Forever" slogan that got so much backlash? Just curious for more context on this particular topic! Curiosity abounds. MrAureliusR_Talk! 07:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw these today and thought you might be interested: [1][2] Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's News18's reliability? For a news article, I'm not seeing anything in there that backs up their claims it was (1) murder and (2) tied to a drug ring; they just say it is, then don't show their work. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And news18 is on one of Praxidicae's black-hat SEO lists. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you had doubts, I wasn't suggesting that we change what's in the article, I was just sharing some of the latest fluff. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and unrelated, on my desktop, the FAQ at top seems to be the old version with one question, so that might be working against us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to change it, but barring /FAQ2 being moved to /FAQ I don't think there is much we can do. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 01:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why you have included the username of the deceased User:Hasteur in your custom signature? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially as a memorial, such as I can do. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change his death cause from Suicide by hanging to asphyxia due to hanging as nothing has been confirmed yet. Well if I'm not wrong you are an Indian right? Von de leorde (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Indian, and we will do no such thing given that the CBI-commissioned AIIMS review reaffirmed suicide, as you would have figured out if you'd stopped and read any of the links I proffered on Cyphoidbomb's talk page, or any of the links cited on the FAQ. For all intents and purposes, suicide is proven, and thus matter is closed. We will not entertain conspiracy theories no credible source is taking seriously, especially on an article subject to our stricter biographical policies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change but if you agree you can change. Von de leorde (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested, and nor is Wikipedia as a whole, in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident starring Rhea Chakraborty. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly review my submission and move the page into the article space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

Thanks Rubiesar (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do reviews. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JC, no disrespect is intended, but I think it would be better to take the discussion with KaveriNadi to their talk page or something, as I'm not exactly sure even what their greater point is, and that talk page is so problematic that tangential chit-chat just seems like an invitation for problems. Feel free to disagree and ignore this comment, I just had an opinion I wanted to express. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very effective indeed in keeping and spam and other coi! But even dealing with people who are not good faith editors I have found it advisable to avoid negative words like those below in replying to an editor or in an edit summary. Be particularly careful with edit summaries: they can be suppressed, but not changed, so it is therefore advisable to keep them short and neutral.

"your post here, having an identical tone to the article, only damns the draft and your chances of continuing to edit here. "

"promotional trash"

"Revert this shit off. Don't collapse it, 86 it."

I'ts easy to forget; you and I have been here a similar length of time, and it gets very exasperated to keep dealing with some of this. I know that I too have sometime embarrassed myself by lapses. And I know how impatient one can get DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to that last one, see the edit history and (perennially-ignored) FAQ of Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. They're not actually after help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jéské Couriano,

These people have a legitimate concern about how Google answers this inquiry. It is a major screw-up on Google's part. They are coming to Wikipedia because Google is displaying this specific Wikipedia article as the source for Google's bad answer. So, I do not think that blanking posts and lecturing people in edit summaries is the best response. Why not just explain to people that Google is responsible for the error, and that they should contact Google? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if I haven't seen this sort of behaviour before. The problem is, I don't think they're going to particularly care what we're saying unless it's an unequivocal mea culpa. I've been dealing with this in -en-help as well and pretty much everyone who's come in there is aggressively refusing to listen when we say it's on Google's end. They don't want answers, they already have them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these people is an individual human being and they should not be pigeonholed into a group without trying to communicate. It is not fair to categorize every one of them as completely unreasonable. This is completely different from the Sushant Singh Rajput situation. Those were people pushing a baseless conspiracy theory originating from the Hindu aversion to suicide. These people are correct and just need a clear explanation that Google is responsible for the error. Since the Wikipedia article is plastered on the Google error, it is not at all unreasonable that people would come here unhappy about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then. Try it your way. But don't come back here complaining that nobody is listening. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Jéské Couriano, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please don't respond at the Teahouse this way. The whole point of the Teahouse is that it's where new Wikipedians get relatively gentle advice and correction, not to be told "all your sources are useless" and (edit summary) "all five sources are crap". You've been here longer than I have; you have to be familiar with WP:BITE. There is a place for blunt communication, no doubt. It isn't the Teahouse. To answer your followup question, yes, in that venue I do expect you to sugarcoat it. It's not difficult to be clear and unambiguous while also offering constructive help. If you could fix your signature so it actually shows your username, I'd appreciate that too. The current version isn't even related to it. › Mortee _talk 21:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to sugarcoat that their article has little to no chance of being accepted by sin of having zero usable sources, especially when a previous attempt was deleted for having well-below standard sourcing. I don't sugarcoat when it comes to drafts in general; I've gotten burnt by it on #wikipedia-en-help by users whose reading comprehension can best be described as "for sale". That being said, if a draft has potential I do point it out, if you'd noticed had you bothered to look down the page. I've also on occasion actually looked for sources if necessary, including indicating which search strings I used to do so. As to the signature issue, that was already dealt with shortly after I read your initial Teahouse message, and is thus moot. This is merely the first time I've needed to sign anything since I changed it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Please do not bite the newcomers as to why Mortee thinks your tone isn't appropriate for Teahouse. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought the style was familiar. (The "new" editor's style, that is). It might not surprise you to hear that Squirrelnet has now created the article Zakariabenlafqih asked about in that thread, using the very same references. I draftified it, and should take a look at the other articles created by Squirrelnet as well. Their contributions log is... interesting (as is their user page!) --bonadea contributions talk 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea Whatever you're gesturing at can be taken to WP:SPI. I'm only asking that the Teahouse be respected as the one place on Wikipedia where more gentle communication is still a norm. If people turn out to be miscreants, take it up elsewhere. (This is also in reference to your edit summary "Wikipedia needs more people who don't hesitate to say it like it is". More people speaking clearly instead of saying "... interesting" would be a good thing. More people telling Teahouse contributors that all their sources are "crap" would not be.) › Mortee _talk 22:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking clearly and sugarcoating are mutually exclusive by definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I want to thank you for your help at IRC! StarshipSLS (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! StarshipSLS (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For helping a thick and frazzled editor. Woodshed (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciative comments regarding my substantial edits to this page in response to your nomitation for deletition. I would have thanked you in the discussion there but it has closed already. Glad the work was productive. Cabrils (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for putting in the effort. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that quarantine of "mercenary work" on Aaron Gabriel Golbin. I opened a COIN thread, as it strongly resembles COI, one way or another.--- Possibly (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have an AfD in the wings for Goblin if he tries bypassing AfC again, but I wasn't aware he was pulling the same shit with DebateIsland. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD would be good if he does this again since it gives us G4 criteria for CSD. Good work fellas! Also, I don't know about y'all, but when he moved the draft into mainspace *after* I rejected it, that got me fuming lol. Curbon7 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagged DebateIsland G11. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the deletion logs, it's an ongoing issue. If I had to guess, I would say it resembles a hypothetical situation where a teenage businessperson has mercilessly pushed their own interests on wiki. I only wish these hypothetical people knew that the harder they push, the harder it makes it to achieve their goals: in the case of Golbin, three accounts are already blocked for socking, and Aaron Golbin is create protected.--- Possibly (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why the move target was what it was. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, going to RFPP was excellent. I look forward to crossing paths again. --- Possibly (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just requested the draft and mainspace DebateIsland pages be salted, since the person and the website seem to be a two-for-one-package deal. I don't want to take any chances that this obvious native advertising attempt gets anywhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarsus_American_College and thought I could ask some Turkish Wikipedians if they could find some sources about this school. Some of the articles may be in Turkish but have English abstracts. Would you be alright looking at any of the sources that are written in English and giving your views on whether they prove notability?

Also in regards to using master's theses as sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I can check to see if any academic books cited that master's thesis, as I think that would give admissibility to that thesis. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't anything like the sources which came up via Google - almost all of which were name-drops - I wouldn't mind looking at them, but some of the issue here is that the article proper has serious WP:COI issues, as the AfD caused a lot of single-purpose accounts who appeared to be connected to the school in some way to crawl out of the woodwork. In all honesty, you'd be better off seeing if a relevant WikiProject exists that could assess the sources, though - it will likely take me a while to assess, and if they require technical/topical knowledge I don't have, I'd be little better as a source assessor than any other yahoo off the street. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough! I'm in talks with people on the Turkish Wikipedia and used your points to make a suggestion: they could re-write the article from the ground up (in other words bypass the content written by "single purpose accounts"). So far what they've found is predominately in Turkish and so they might be in a better position to interpret the sources. I also will tell the WikiProject Turkey on the English Wikipedia about this. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Education might also be able to help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ello! I know you've probably had your nickname of "A little blue Bori" for a while but I don't actually know what it means? Mind telling me cause honestly, I like it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That's actually really cool. Thanks for telling me! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear sir, do I love this poem It filled my life up with joy and humor Now take this kitten and smile with honor For you should share your poems with others Justiyaya 05:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HEY YO, Thanks for the help out there, i'm keen and willing to learn more about using sources. So far i've removed the sparse and role byline article's on Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Can you have a look n let me know what else do you think i should do. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i was waiting for your response haha, Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 17:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- you reverted my edits. The stray animal belt is a real place where he grew up. I will get more links. It is not an inside joke.

For adding he is a Pisces I can say it more formal. He reached out to me to ask me to make certain edits. He is quoted saying a lot of things. If he was quoted saying that in an article may I do it as a quote as well? and can you give me tips on how to make it proper if so?

Also can you help me with another page I am trying to get launched for the artist Shawn Theodore? Romanstuff (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)RomanStuff[reply]

I've made no edits to Theo Von - you want to talk to Ash-Gaar (talk · contribs) - and I've already dealt with the latter half of the question on WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your comment was far too vehement and comparing routine businessperson puffery to the 16 year old Siegenthaler incident is both incorrect and over the top. It is important to explain and defend BLP policy, but it is equally important to do so in a way that does not bite newcomers or rely on hyperbole. Please be very sparing in your use of bold, italic, bold italic and colored text. Write to persuade instead of to berate. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review.

Appreciate your help in this matter. Political appointees were added to wikipedia at time of appointment with no individual effort. Assistant Secretary Charles Williams was overlooked. The following are peers, predecessor and successor. Do you know how wikipedia lists some but not all in similar positions? More references were added. Added 4 more references. Maybe going about this incorrectly.

Thanks Flagship1

Peers:

John Henderson (Air Force Asst. Secretary) Alex Beehler (Army Asst. Secretary) Jordan Gillis (Army Asst. Secretary) Greg Slavonic (Navy Asst. Secretary) James Geurts (Navy Asst. Secretary) Thomas Harker (Navy Asst. Secretary)

Predecessor:

Lucian Niemeyer (Navy Asst. Secretary

Successor:

Meredith Berger (Navy Asst. Secretary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagship1 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One possible explanation. And another. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flagship1: But the more concerning thing to me, now that I have had my coffee, is that some of the links were unassessable because of what appeared to be poor attempts to shorten them by throwing in random ellipses in the URL. This doesn't work; all it does is break the URL and make the link useless. In addition, we expect references to be formatted a certain way, especially for articles about living/recently-departed people, and the sourcing fell well short of that standard when I looked at the draft last. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, that is kind of too bad that there has to be some controversy in order to include a fan game project or patch for a game. it has been a while that i have been thinking about adding or requesting articles based on notable game hacks, mods, and obscure original creations.

Sometimes these creations are found only in some dedicated forums or are just mentioned in youtube videos, and are very hard to find in search engines, another negative is that some people trying to find them end up in dubious download websites and risk harming their computers.

i will take alook at articles similar to AM2R & see if i can fix the NSX article better. My original intention was to request the topic or article instead of making it myself, tho....

thanks 189.181.133.90 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily controversy, but some sort of coverage. The problem with fangames is that coverage is almost always a kiss of death for a fangame, as the publicity leads the rightsholders to put the kibosh on it (see also: My Little Pony: Fighting is Magic's demise after it made an EVO poll). There's a reason why there're few fangame articles, and why many of them are postmortems. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mansi Choksi

Hi there,

Thanks so much for spending the time and energy to walk me through this. I think I understand the distinction now and went ahead and added appropriate links that I believe better establish Choksi's notability.

I'll sum it up here:

1. https://opcofamerica.org/Awardarchive/the-madeline-dane-ross-award-2018/ An award that describes her work and that was presented at an award ceremony hosted by a CBS anchor and uploaded to the official OPC site.

2. https://medium.com/the-coalition-for-women-in-journalism/mansi-choksi-represents-cfwij-at-article-19-mexico-ad54f5d895a This article sums up a speech she gave at an Article 19 conference in Mexico about her work in journalism. Article 19's official channel. Article 19 is a human rights organization that is linked to a Wiki page above. I have also linked to a Youtube video aired on an Spanish news TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIDlYSZnUl4

4. https://www.iwmf.org/reporting/a-chance-to-rewrite-history-the-women-fighters-of-the-tamil-tigers/ This piece, although written by her, includes an intro by the editor since it was the last piece written by the murdered Swedish journalist Kim Wall. It also won a nomination for the Livingston Award, which is the most prestigious award for journalists under 35, they are referred to as the Pulitzer of the Young, as seen in its Wiki page.

5. https://longreads.com/2017/12/22/the-top-5-longreads-of-the-week-201/ Her story has been picked as the top 5 long reads.

6. https://wallacehouse.umich.edu/2018-livingston-award-finalists-announced/ I changed the link to Wallace House to show that she was a finalist for the most prestigious award for journalists under 35.

I'll look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks once again!!!

Navnine9 (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The prestige of the award itself is my concern.
2. Medium is deprecated; we cannot cite it.
3. The YouTube channel in question is not verified. We require verification for YouTube cites.
4. Anything she personally writes, full stop, is worthless for notability. Cite the award win instead.
5. Longreads is a listicle and too sparse.
6. Being a finalist is not enough. For the award nomination to be relevant there either has to be a lot of them or she has to outright win. Again, cite the award win. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

Here’s an article that demonstrates the prestige of OPC awards: https://www.nytco.com/press/the-new-york-times-wins-five-o-p-c-awards/

I also added a bunch of other awards she won. Including the prestigious merit-based Fulbright scholarship. Does this make a better case? Navnine9 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2001:8F8:1D32:DA97:3844:100:94E6:76BD (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the full url here. You will see another editor who seems unable or unwilling to take advice. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need another example - I deal with them almost daily. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all do. We all do. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just that. Thank you. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to people like that, there's sadly a even-money or better chance that they'll resort to sockpuppetry. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with rather bizarre usernames. We've both seen it before. We'll both see it again. I decided to take it at face value and draw it out. You zapped it. I put the draft up at MfD. Up to you whether you make a comment there Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help at the McCullough article talk page. Since you appear to never have received these standard notices, here they are:

---

—PaleoNeonate – 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't work in areas like this. It's literally only the brigading that's led me to keep an eye on that page as of late. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done on trying to help. Will watch the AfD, but no more to contribute either to the article or the editor. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason I haven't said much, and it's because this is very much a high conflict-of-interest situation. The user has a bit of a history of attempting to bludgeon the process, and the nine hours that us helpers in wikipedia-en-help have spent trying to explain how things work have fallen on deaf ears as he completely refuses to ever consider the notion he's wrong. I half-expect him to recruit meatpuppets - questions he was asking yesterday about the AfD process implied he was considering off-site canvassing - and he is presently banned from -en-help for issuing a legal threat (User:Perryprog and User:Jmcgnh have more details on that front). Ordinarily I'd be more active in refuting his points, but I worry if I attempt to do so he's going to end up bludgeoning the AfD more than he already is.

Incidentally, the reason I sent it to AfD after gutting it is because I was filing the AfD while I was dealing with him in -en-help (spoilers: He really hated us helpers' assessment of his sources) and, rather unusually for most of the articles I send to AfD based on them being linked in -en-help, I pinged Primefac to see if he would draftify it instead. He explicitly favoured AfD here. As you might expect, Godsentme1 was livid at me because he wilfully misinterpreted something I said (I said I'd file an AfD if Primefac declined to draftify or didn't respond within 48 hours; he interpreted it to mean "I won't file an AfD for 48 hours if Primefac declines to draftify"). I'd gutted it in hopes that I'd be able to find enough sources to avoid having to AfD it, and the sources used are low-quality enough I considered them not good enough to satisfy WP:BLP standards. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While still draft I had told the editor that WP:TOOSOON applied, and to let the draft sit until after the album was released and reviewed. I concur one of the more stubborn and beligerent newbies ever to be at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jéské,

I realize that you are a very experienced editor on Wikipedia but every time you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you need to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. Not only it is part of the deletion process but it alerts the editor to existing problems with their contributions and informs them of the reason why the page might be deleted.

Most of Wikipedia editors take care of these notifications by using Twinkle when they tag pages for deletion. If you set up your Twinkle Preferences so that a) "Notify page creator" is always checked and b) make sure that all criteria of speedy deletion are checked off (I think the Twinkle default is to only have a few criteria selected) then Twinkle will take care of these notifications for you. If you choose not to use Twinkle, then please find an appropriate template to use or write out a notification yourself. Thank you for all of the work you do on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Twinkle or any other automated tool, and in this case the tagging was triggered by a conversation with the draft's author on -en-help (where I told him point-blank I was tagging it and why). Most of the stuff I tag is either so old that a notification is impractical or because I'm actively speaking to the author of the page in a help forum. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that there are enough grounds to lodge an investigation as to whether User:Pecar22, User:Sarah Albany and User:Bindel04 are sockpuppets of User:Amoeba69th? Pecar22 has only provided one edit but uses the same arguments as Amoeba69th. The others have only edited the article on Sarah Azhari but provided similar editing to Amoeba69th. Dan arndt (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to have a looksee. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albany's too old to CU and with only one edit any behavioural match would be tenuous at best. As for the other two, as long as they aren't being used to try and skew the debate directly I don't think it's a wise use of time to go after them even if they are sockpuppets. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind having a look at this draft. You seem to be even more direct than I am and that directness may assist the autobiographer in stopping a pointless effort Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I've rejected the draft and provided clear instructions on how the submitting editor may proceed. ––FormalDude talk 20:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher)[reply]

I've also replied. If he's basing his entire notability argument off of what reads to me like a couple of image captions, I don't see any chance in hell that this becomes an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude, Jéské Couriano, I am grateful to both of you. Sometimes it is hard to get folk to listen. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jéské!

I have been working with @Salimfadhley--specifically, to get his feedback--on Draft:B. Riley Financial. My last message to him was one month ago, and, as of today, I haven't heard back. He seems to be inactive lately, so I hope you don't mind that I'm pinging you.

Actually, as I'm writing this, @Salimfadhley just replied! Well, he responded but he didn't address the issue. He wrote, "It is definitely not cool to post an entire conversation into somebody's talk page."

At this point, I'm confused and frustrated. As you can see on Salim's talk page, to save space, I hid the new draft in a dropdown, and I responded to each of his points with specifics. I'm unsure what I could or should have done differently.

Also, after Salim declined my initial draft in November, I submitted a request at the Help Desk. No one responded.

I mention this history not to complain, but to underscore my efforts and patience.

So, with apologies for the long message, would you feel comfortable taking a look at my revised draft? I won't copy and paste it here (unless you prefer that); instead, it's still viewable on Salim's talk page (click "show" to the right of the "extended content" bar).

Thank you in advance for your guidance and help. WalksInWelcome (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @WalksInWelcome.

At the time I declined this draft because it seemed that this subject had not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

The issue for all drafts is whether this subject has been shown to be notable. The way we determine this is by reviewing the sources on your draft. I notice that your draft does have a great many sources, but they seem to be overwhelmingly of a kind that cannot be used to establish notability: Routine coverage, brief mentions, government documents, routine filings. None of these are useful to use.

May I suggest that if you wish to have your article reviewed again, simply reduce to the core of information that establishes it's notability. Remove any source that doesn't meet our requirement and then resubmit. There is no requirement that the editor who previously declined your draft be appeased or consulted. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not formally review drafts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest, @WalksInWelcome, that you reduce the draft down to the core of it's notability. Include only 4 or 5 high quality sources. Get rid of the rest. Resubmit the document. It's probably best not to try to lobby individual editors to change their minds. Also, consider that creating articles about corporations is often regarded as one of the harder subject matters to tackle as a beginner editor. Consider writing about other subjects and then return to this topic if you still have an interest in this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Salimfadhley and @Jéské Couriano, Thank you for your replies. I will resubmit a new and revised draft. WalksInWelcome (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jéské. Thanks for your reply at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 11#Christian weston chandler. The discussion was SNOW closed before I even got up to speed. I have not read the alluded-to many AN threads, just the last once cited in the close. I have a little bit of memory of seeing this case before, but barely.

I believe that it is always a good idea for a request to recreate a controversial article should begin with a draft listing the WP:THREE. I later saw that the proponent of recreation did list three sources. I wanted to note, somewhere, here will do, that I have reviewed those three sources and find them not sufficient to justify drafting a new article, not overcoming the reasons not to, BLPCRIME, and WP:HNE.

I also wanted to comment on the comment “there's already lots of awful stuff out there for people to read. By Wikipedia not putting up an article, we are not stopping or preventing any of that. But not putting a good balanced/article to point out some of the evil that was done to her...we are missing out on doing some good. Missed opportunity” that you answered. My answer would have been that the proponent, while meaning well, is failing WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia does not and must not take positions to correct the real world. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circumstance where WP:THREE is completely irrelevant. Other than her legal issues (and as pointed out in the DRV, news reports on them are clickbaity) she's not a public individual, and her notability stems almost entirely from the 15+ years of relentless harassment she's been enduring. You could provide all the sources in the world, and she'd still be a private individual who's the target of an extensive harassment campaign. As I said, I dealt with some of this crap almost 10 years ago while I was an admin myself. Even back then there were regular efforts to try and create an article on her to the point titles had to be salted and accounts had to be blocked for furthering the harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although for some reason you aren't signed up as a host at the Teahouse, I recognise you've made a huge number of contributions there over the years. So I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts and other helpers if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse, whilst I've had just one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.

If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as have done at the Teahouse in the past - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. But please only do so if you are genuinely willing to be available to help. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.

Thank you! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Loved it, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature includes an internal link with an underscore in its name. Underscores in internal links are 99% of the time the unintended result of copy/pasting an article title from the address bar, but in your case it's actually ASCII art. I don't know if you've ever had issues with this (I could imagine for example AWB users accidentally removing the mouth from v^_^v), but I noticed my script would replace it with a space when editing a full section or page. As there's not really any way to differentiate between unintended and intended underscores in internal links, I'd suggest replacing the underscore with it's HTML code: _. I won't and can't force you of course. And if you know a way to detect intended underscores (that doesn't involve a whitelist) I'd be interested to know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the heads up. (Having the Kacheek face there for years it's a wonder this wasn't pointed out sooner.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely moot now that 24rhhtr7 has been indefinitely blocked, but per an Arb decision, you should check to see if an editor has been alerted to DS before issuing an alert. In this particular case, Johnuniq alerted 24rhhtr7 to the AP DS on March 22, 2022, making your alert for AP on March 26, 2022 a duplicate. Now I obviously know you had good intentions, but I wanted to let you know that in the future you should do a quick check before dropping the alerts, as sometimes editors can react unpredictably if they've recently been alerted and reverted it, for example. You can run a quick search in the user's talk page history or check their logs. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Usually when I drop a DS/GS alert it's either on accounts that end up being drive-bys in IPA based off of RfPP posts (specifically to /Edit and /Decrease) or CRYPTO alerts based off of IRC conversations and an existing draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jayla Marie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it got resolved while I was asleep - some mercenary (who's since been blocked) tried to expand the page into a promotional piece; another user restored the original redirect after your G11 tagging. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your arduous tasks you do at the Teahouse, whilst this is impressive, may I suggest that you begin every response with "Hello and welcome to the Teahouse" this makes the editor asking the question feel very comfortable and this subconsciously appeals to the editor making them know that they are indeed loved and very welcome, of course this isn’t mandatory but merely my philosophy. Celestina007 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind but I plan to use this. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Just make sure to link to it whenever you do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - fellow AfD help desk volunteer here. Your work to identify poor sourcing in proposed drafts is commendable, but I'd like to suggest responding to new editors with a lighter touch. I can tell from some of your responses [[4]] that the non-stop barrage of connected editors is frustrating you, but remember that they are inexperienced and clearly have no idea that what they are doing is wrong. The sources are garbage, but they don't need to be told that. We don't want them to think we're jerks over here, since that will affect how they view the encyclopedia. Think of yourself as a brand representative. Maybe next time someone makes you frustrated with poor sourcing, before writing a harsh response, you might take a quick breath, and think about how great Wikipedia is, remember what it was like when you were new, and then rewrite the note with a more neutral response. See you at the help desk! TechnoTalk (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's less the barrage of connected editors and more that those editors don't do even the simplest iota of research beyond looking for articles to ape. And I will not sugarcoat it for them. The best way to help them is to be as blunt and as clear as possible, not mealy-mouthed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Fellow AfC help desk volunteer here. Your insights and understanding of policies and guidelines are helpful, but I'm writing to you again about your tone in responding to other editors, such as here. Please remember that even though we are all volunteers, we represent Wikipedia to newcomers, and don't want them to think we are being rude. It will affect their perception of the encyclopedia. Please try to limit the harsh language in the future. If you are getting frustrated by newbies who don't understand how things work, please consider taking a break to recharge. Happy editing! TechnoTalk (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the WP:Teahouse interactions with Gelowiki, that is because they have a high conflict of interest and are trying to write an article on an 11-year-old child with little concern for the subject's privacy and safety. They have been told this in no uncertain terms on multiple fora and refuse to take any of what they've been told on board. I am not going to use kid gloves if they've repeatedly been told not to mess with the candle and they use it to set the drapes on fire. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though to answer the perp's question ("Why did you delete my page?"), the reason provided for the deletion was promotionalism, not privacy protection. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I had the page sent to Oversight because it contained far too much information that could be used to locate the girl. I asked another admin (Writ Keeper) to delete it in the interim via private channels, and they opted to delete it under G11. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you said that to Me2638 at afchelp. The thing to Gelowiki at the Teahouse was kind of similar, but it was a different subject, and that comment may have been justified. User Me2628 looks, to me, like someone who is trying in good faith but they are fairly new. @TechnoTalk might have a point... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Scope Creep: revenge and disruptive editing part 2, TechoTalk has brought you up via link to their comments on your talk page.

Erring on the side of everyone named at ANI should be notified. Slywriter (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jéské Couriano, as an AfC reviewer I do read through the AfC help desk inquiries and have learned quite a bit through your responses, especially your source analysis. We often must consider sources with which we are unfamiliar and I have used your approach as guide for how to assess them so just wanted to say thanks. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (And do feel free to peruse User:Jéské Couriano/Decode; it has a bit more detail.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ilovemydoodle. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Help desk have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle: See WP:CHILDPROTECT. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 07:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské, have you contacted oversight about the material you removed? It really should be suppressed and removed from public view entirely.

@Ilovemydoodle expecting people to put the reason why they redacted part of a comment in the edit summary is ridiculous - it draws attention to the redacted material and makes it harder for oversight/revision delete to clean up the resulting mess. If you have concerns about someone redacting part of a comment then ask them about it before you restore inappropriate, oversightable material onto a highly visible public page. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not until you reminded me; I've had a full plate RL today. And you pretty much described my SOP for suppressable material - redact it with no comment beyond stating I'm redacting it so as to limit any possible Streisanding which could spread that material far beyond where it already unnecessarily is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 12:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Happy Birthday Jéské Couriano Brakshit23 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I like some light entertainment on a Saturday evening. :-) Nthep (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asked "I want to ask if there is a way to produce a graph that shows the stock price of it during these last 2 weeks?" You answered "no" which is incorrect. Take a look at GameStop short squeeze which describes a very similar situation, and the same graphing techniques can be used to create graphs for this article. Please do not answer "no" when the correct answer is "yes". Cullen328 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that I also came here to write about the Tea house, but I guess I'll have to change the section header a bit. Anyway... Jéské, you obviously have a deep knowledge of Wikipedia, and also of your specialty topics. And it's great that you volunteer at the Tea house. But, (Aha! I bet you knew there was a but coming...) your responses, although accurate as far as they go, sometimes have a preachy or impatient tone. (Please accept this attempt at constructive criticism, from someone who can be preachy and impatient . ) I found this response to the entry WP:Tea house § Wanted to Created a Company Page accurate, but harsh. Maybe just go a little easier on them; they're often newbies and might consider becoming an editor and writing about something else. Or maybe they won't, but one never knows, and a harsh first experience at Wikipedia probably won't seem very encouraging. Other than that, I really enjoy your comments at various Talk forums and Rfc's. Keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that a person who views Wikipedia as an ersatz Facebook or as a billboard has no interest in editing elsewhere unless you make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that they have no idea what they're doing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you post a diatribe like that at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you indefinitely from the Teahouse. Your conduct is unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I will not be blamed for a repeat of The North Face incident. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: on what grounds ? Nick (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, ranting and raving like that is completely incompatible with Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Expectations and way out of line at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How much of it did you actually read, Cullen? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read every word of your inappropriate diatribe and I read every word of the behavioral expectations for editors who answer questions at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then in what way, policy-wise, is any of it wrong? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse. You were neither polite nor patient. You were antagonistic and brought up many things that had nothing to do with the original question. You were blowing off steam. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A post that betrays a complete and total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates from a user who has a painfully obvious conflict-of-interest doesn't require a responce that explains why they are mistaken with links to policy to back it up? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Is "ranting and raving" mentioned anywhere in the blocking policy, out of curiosity, or is there a specific section that allows you to block anybody you think isn't "being polite and patient with all editors who visit the Teahouse" ? I'm also rather intrigued, do you think threatening to block a long-term editor and effectively forcing them away from aiding at the Teahouse is conducive to the long term viability of the Teahouse ? Your threat reads like you're running the Teahouse as some sort of private fiefdom, demanding people do things a specific way, and as we know from how the Teahouse came into being, Wikipedia has never accepted these private little fiefdoms. Nick (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I am surprised that you are defending Jéské Couriano's disruptive editing at the Teahouse. I have warned the editor about this previously. All I am asking is that the excessively hostile comments stop. If it continues and I pageblock, then the matter can go to ANI and the community can decide which of us is editing on a disruptive fashion. I am confident about the outcome of any such discussion. Esperanza ended several years before the Teahouse started and there is zero connection. As for your fiefdom accusation, I consider your comment to be without merit. Cullen328 (talk)

Cullen, you got on my case for being a dumbass above. (And yes, you are correct but assumed malice rather than ignorance.) I don't trust you to not make a federal case out of anything I say from this point forward. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply follow the Teahouse behavioral expectations and provide accurate answers, then I will have no problem with your contributions in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be anything but blunt as a truncheon with editors who have a conflict of interest. I've had kinder wording be exploited for loopholes; I would rather be unambiguous and clear than mealy-mouthed and gullible-sounding. And besides, I could be the sweetest person in the world and I have a feeling you'd still come after me because I used one too many "the"s. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the next time that you are "as blunt as a truncheon" in the same or similar fashion at the Teahouse, I will pageblock you for disruptive editing, and we will see where it goes from there. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Now get the fuck off my talk page and stay there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't going to post again, but I thought the edit summary at this AFCHD comment was really funny; you should consider adopting that somewhere on your user or UTP as a motto, or userbox, or something. Wry self-awareness is a good thing. Unfortunately, the folks at that board won't get it, but I did, just in case you were wondering if there was an audience for it. There was; and thanks for the chuckle! Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have it for you; it's here. Let me know if you want it, and I'll move it to a user WP:User subpage for you. (Text can be changed as desired; ditto image, colors, etc.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I would rather not use as it has a good chance of being taken the wrong way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I get you. I think you get a lot of latitude on your own userpage, but it's your call; I'll delete it in a day or two. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my request. Albeit it went exactly nowhere, it was useful to get input from someone beyond the "Nope!" and "so create an account" replies offered otherwise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It helps that logs are public when it comes to protections, deletions, and the like barring some extreme circumstances. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For some of the low-key hilarious comments. Andre🚐 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw on IRC that you were trying to reach me on #wikipedia-en - sorry for missing your ping! You disconnected from IRC only 10 minutes before I saw them, so I obviously couldn't get back to you. If you still need something, don't be a stranger. ;-) Just let me know or simply ping me again on IRC. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've taken care of that {{cv-revdel}} request that you made on User talk:Concernsavant. Thanks for filing that and for letting us know. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jéské Couriano,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Shahi Kabir for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Shahi Kabir to be deleted, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence I should have tagged the redirects myself, but I have no objection to their deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvin Richardson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Quotations#Overuse, and note the link at the top of that section. You're restoring copyright violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeske, You have just answered me on Tea House regarding Edit Notice. As you said - To Purge. I did it. But, still the issue not sloved.

Doubt I asked on Tea House: Hi..I edited my Edit Notice. But it still shows the previous one. Is there any way to refresh it. Eagle Site (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might not much care what I have to say; I've only been editing for a couple of years as an IP and an account. But...

When you are decoding references for (usually new) editors, which is quite helpful, you must get frustrated at repeated non-sequitirs or other repeated poor sources. And that shows in your notes on the sources. But the OP likely doesn't understand any of that yet, when they are reading your list for the first time. But halfway through the list, they start seeing a lot of "yet another fucking non-sequitir" or whatever.

Maybe the OP fully understands what you are saying, after they read the first couple of your notes--and then they are hit with cussing, as if they kept making the same mistakes after being told what was wrong. But that's not the case--they are seeing your list all at once, without a chance to go back and say "I get it; I'll fix the references". It just seems rude to cuss at the editor on their first reading of your explanations, before they have a chance to implement your advice. If they keep doing the same thing to the article after seeing your whole decoding, then by all means, cuss away. Just my two cents. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For "Wikipediae". Prost! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politely but insistently dumps the beer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of this comment is that there is a valid reason that the user is opposing a redirect/merge; the user is writing that the article does not duplicate the scope of an existing article in its current form (are a discrete entity that are not a subset of any other subject) and that the scope of the Twitter Files will grow beyond the Hunter Biden-related items (TTF releases are forthcoming concerning other heretofore unconfirmed or private communications and decisions e.g. the banning of the account of The Babylon Bee satire site). I understand the urge to remove the comment because of its final line, but it isn't the case that the whole comment is off topic. Would you please self-revert? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That I can do. For the record, I'm incredibly sensitive to the wording of arguments on that AfD; even if they are on-topic inflammatory ones like that should be flat-out discouraged or refactored; I still remember the shitshow that was MKUCR 2021 and am very concerned this will metastasize into the AP2 version of it. As for your reverting of me earlier, that I will admit is a misread on my part. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should discourage people from making inflammatory AfD posts and that uncivil comments in deletion discussions should be mitigated. That being said, I wish there were a better system in place to clerk this sort of thing rather than to summarily delete comments in their entirety... something like a {{personal attack removed}} but for general incivility might be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding the issue is that a lot of the comments that have been removed/refactored thus far are ones that fall square into AP2's wheelhouse. I've also been dropping AP2 sanctions alerts as well since, again, I'm worried this will be the AP2 MKUCR. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you a couple of months ago about inappropriate aggressiveness towards new editors and have not noticed any such misconduct since then at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, and thought that perhaps my message had gotten through. But no. I just noticed that you have described yourself as a bastard helper from Hell at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

Consider this a final warning. The next time you pull a grotesque stunt like that, I will block you indefinitely, and you will need to convince another administrator that your misconduct will never happen again if you want to be unblocked. Stop acting like a jackass. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a matter of tone, Jeske. You can do this. Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page, Cullen? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 14:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for this? It would be nice to have something, because it's going to be in this week's Signpost. jp×g 11:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a source that says pretty much that while making that edit. In December 2020, PTA had issued notices to Google and Wikipedia on account of disseminating sacrilegious content through the platforms. PTA said it has been receiving complaints regarding misleading search results associated with “Present Khalifa of Islam” and unauthentic version of Holy Quran on Google Play Store. (emphasis added) Dec 2020 is when WP:CALIPH first became an issue, and it's pretty well documented at this point that we've been taking some of the blame for Google's behaviour. I'm looking for a source that says something more concretely, but so far the only source I can access that mentions the Ahmadiyya at all is the Tribune source. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 13:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News18 also mentions the 2020 complaint, but doesn't mention the Ahmadiyya: https://www.news18.com/news/world/remove-sacrilegious-content-or-face-ban-pakistan-telecom-body-tells-wikipedia-6988297.html I'm wondering if part of it is the Ahmadiyya sect's heretic status as to why they won't outright say the reason for the ban. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for the tips on my new article in the IRC... Lightningm (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, reverted the wrong thing. Redwarn's been acting up for me, might switch to Ultraviolet because it's so buggy. Sorry again. Roundish ⋆tc) 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; both the helpful IP and I had been making similar mistakes simply because of how fast the editing was happening. Apologies for the more accusatory tone. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can request page protection as enforcement of a discretionary sanction at WP:RPP, I don't think you don't need to make a AE report. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that yesterday; it did not happen. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

since there are multiple sources now including from vice, can you go and revert peoples edits back. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to restore the hyperbolic edits made before the sources started to come out - those remain WP:BLP violations. There are also discussions still ongoing about how best to present Pocalyko's involvement at Talk:Michael Pocalyko; I would sooner allow those discussions to play out as the article now falls into a contentious topic area and I have no desire to be dragged to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement by partisans. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations that are extremely limited because you put a lock on the page. Most people cant even engage in that talk as a result of the lock. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never sought a semi-protection for Talk:Michael Pocalyko, and I'm not an administrator and so can't protect pages. That being said, comments like the one I just removed are a big chunk of the reason why the protection was issued. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean comment that have also been made by not one, not 2 but now three mainstream press outlets. But since its about a issue that you consider partisan (even tho its not), but since you feel it is you can label it "contentious"; just as you have thru out Talk:Michael Pocalyko, everytime theres relevant sourcing, its you in the comments finding another reason. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to double-check your reading comprehension; I've generally been on board with every source presented thus far. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you can't beat them start throwing insults. Great Strategy. Your literally in almost every thread arguing with someone every time a new source is posted. And while you might not be an administrator, you largely were responsible for the Page protection and for dragging it out, so go ahead and continue trying to appear coy over the situation. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no I am not. The only things I've said in re sourcing were either before reliable sources began to report on it, agreeing with the first serious third-party report about the situation, and a comment about original synthesis. A quick look at my contributions would have found that out right quick. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if your going to lie about it, there no point in having a "talk".

The first comment was of the line "hasn't gone through a professional editor", shortly after you requested protection for the page "I've put in a request at Arb Enforcement to have the XCP extended here",

then when a new sources poped up from queerly, LGBTQ mag, Into and Dazed, you said "This is synthesis",

Vice news and Rolling stone comes out, suddenly now its contentious.

Your in the comments pushing the goal post each time mate. 2600:8806:3105:E500:1D83:1C26:3430:F300 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are now blatantly mischaracterising my edits, I agree there is no further point. Stay off my talk page. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to raise a formal complaint about me, WP:AN/I is thataway. But be aware your behaviour will also come under scrutiny. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your diligent takedown at Talk:Creole_peoples#The_IPv6's_lede_and_sources which is one of the most thorough criticisms I've seen in my time here. Nice job. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did it mainly because he kept complaining nobody was looking at his sources (and kept accusing Materialscientist of reverting based on his not including sources, which was not the case). As you can see from their user talk page, the complaining about sources was a pretense. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The query is on my talk page. Harharshit (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Help:Table? (It would also help if you edited in the source editor and not VisualEditor.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Infobox individual darts tournament has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 25 § Infobox individual darts tournament until a consensus is reached. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests are allowed for non-ec editors in the topic area. It's one of the few edits they're allowed to make dealing with the topic. This is likely to become more common as some talk pages are getting ec protected. I suggest you decline with minimal comment, and revert duplicate requests. Thanks for taking your time to address the edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also feel free to revert any that are non-constructive. There's obviously some discretion there, but anything polemic, repeated canards about "say x is terrorist", "y is genocide", "z is the capital of a", or obvious NPOV can all be reverted. You can also report repeat offenders at ANI or AE, depending on if it's blatantly disruptive, or borderline non-constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is so helpful! I understand wikipedia more now. thanks!

BYIlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to continue my conversation with you regarding my help request to say that what I actually was asking about (and should probably have been more clear about) is that I'm unsure what to do considering that I would actually want to use the username previously associated with that now-vanished account, but I'm unable to do what I decided upon: retiring this account and making a new one to use from now on with that username, because I can't make a new account with the same username as that now-vanished account. I still have the credentials for that account, but I haven't tried using them to log in.

Ideally I'd remove any mention of my real name from Wikipedia, but as I talked about in my previous help topic, even a courtesy vanishing doesn't remove every mention of your name from Wikipedia, and it's not supposed to be used for such purposes anyway, so I settled on retiring. Compared to renaming this account, at least it removes any association from my old username and my desired username.

I also have to mention just in case that renaming this account was actually what I was intentioning to do when I vanished the other account, but I never got around to doing it until now and have realized that I prefered retiring.

Thanks for any help. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the old account renamed as part of the process? (Usually a courtesy vanishing involves renaming the account to "renamed/vanished/retired user [random string of gibberish numbers and letters].) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When I try to make a new account, it says that the username is to similar to "Vanised user .....) Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try making an account with a "close enough" name to the old username? (i.e. spelling it phonetically, using homophones?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that wouldn't be possible, as I use the same name across other platforms, and I like that consistency, plus I'm not really sure how to begin to do that in the first place. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The LTA is now offering me to go to a specific address to commit acts of violence so that they could stop outing me. This off-wiki behavior is disgusting. Eyesnore ^talk💬 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a troll. Let us leave him. Pass. (Exeunt) He'll get bored the moment you stop raising a public stink about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the issues you previously addressed about this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaw54/sandbox, and believe that it is ready for publication. Your feedback and assistance would be much appreciated. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say it was a delight to see you commenting to an editor I was doing a ref breakdown for - your very helpful critiques have been my inspiration when I wander through AFCHD. Thank you for your great examples! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll be honest, I didn't look at the sources yet; the draft has more glaringly obvious issues (promotion, under-referencing) though I likely would have opened with a source assessment of my own if those weren't so painfully obvious. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, they have a lot to work on. I went for the sources first because they looked very wrong at a glance, and I thought there was no point even suggesting they try to fix the other major problems if there weren't any good sources to get an article from. Sometimes I wish the article creation pages had a huge this is a really terrible idea if you're only just starting to edit Wikipedia warning, it might help... ah well. StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)m.[reply]

Hi. I am interested to help/contribute in Article creation help. Am I allowed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jéské Couriano. Your amendment request for the India-Pakistan arbitration case has been closed and is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127#Amendment request: India-Pakistan. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 04:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Constitutional Barnstar
		For the lengths you go to in showing new article creators how to meet the criteria for WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually find that it's one of the better ways to teach someone what sort of sources we're expecting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the version of the article 166 Medium Regiment (India) before editing by ODSTsog. As far as I could see, edits made by other editors, including you, during the period when ODSTsog was active, were essentially reverts of ODSTsog's editing, rather than substantially new edits, but if I have inadvertently undone significant contributions of yours then please accept my apology, and, of course, restore the contributions. JBW (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're good. I came in to the Indian Army thing relatively late (it had been going on for almost a month at that point) and we're still finding new accounts being registered or crawling out of the woodwork. That this also falls into a contentious topic (IP) makes me less inclined to do more than just target the vandal I know about than to make an editorial judgment on content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano:Please, protect List of leaders of Hamas, as an Arbitaration enforcement, as the fact newcomers should not edit this type of articles, along the fact there is a lot of sockpuppetry (if you’re asking why I know a lot, I edited Wikipedia when I was in a I.P.). Protoeus (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator (and will not be as long as CRASHlock exists). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	bumpíng into this while drinking some indeterminate hot liquid was not a good idea cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I seem to have trouble with identifying which Forbes articles are written by staffs with oversight, is there some sort of a mark or something in their page that helps to identify them as such? Am I blind? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Staff articles will always be fine, as those will always be written under editorial oversight. Contributor articles that were run in the print editions of Forbes will have a note to that effect either right after the header or as a postscript to the article, identifying the specific edition it ran in; anything run in the print editions went thru the outlet's editorial process. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jéské Couriano, in the open Historical elections arbitration case, in which you offered a statement, a proposed decision has been posted. If you have comments on the proposed decision, they may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. SilverLocust 💬 14:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work together. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JC! Thank you for your clerk work at RFPP/D. When you note that a requested reduction in protection is complicated by the fact that the protection was a logged contentious topics enforcement action, please direct the requester first to the talk page of the protecting admin. AE and ARCA are both good options, but we do generally hope for folks to talk to the protecting admin first—in all cases, and contentious topics especially. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do so in future. Thanks for the note. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it can be very difficult to get people to understand the whole ECR thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in a high-emotion ethnopolitical contentious topic like the Arab-Israeli conflict. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think MGBD has created another sock puppet named Mr.International35. Both of them have similar interest in this particular article, and have similar behaviour on editing, (i.e., Restored MGBD's edits) sounds like a WP:DUCK. If you have time please do check in this page. - Lass121212 (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lass121212: I'd advise filing a sockpuppet investigation; they'd be better suited to sussing out if they are MGBD sockpuppets than I am. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the subject of that note and the poster of that note have been sock-blocked. It appears that you had mirror-image socks fighting with each other. That is confusing because left and right are the same with socks, so that you can't tell which is the mirror image. But they are both blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is one is laser-focused on Hassan, and the other is an issue throughout the Bangladeshi military topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protecting_children's_privacy#Handling_and_reporting_issues. Unreferenced biographies of children can be reported to the Oversight mail group, which will delete them almost as if they had never existed. I have !voted to Delete the page because, now that it is at MFD, any further intervention would cause a Streisand effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that I learned of this thru AfC/HD. There would be a Streisand effect if I went straight to #wikipedia-en-revdel or emailed the Suppressors; I started the MfD so that there's both a paper trail and an unambiguous explanation as to why it's deleted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. An interesting unpleasant situation. The child is trying to publicize himself. I think that what you did was the least bad option. Thank you for explaining, and for nominating. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the thread hadn't already been responded to by the time I saw it, I would have simply reverted the thread off and then emailed Oversight to get rid of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have hesitated to give this reminder since I am technically WP:INVOLVED, but I and other editors in the ideation phase of the EC level pending changes are not finding your recent comments super helpful or productive. There is no need to rush to oppose or support something at this moment. You can and probably should wait until the finalization of the proposal and posting to one of the other forums before you jump into the bandwagon. I have made this mistake before in previous discussions and proposals. Awesome Aasim 21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything I've written in re an RfC being required, or are you dismissing it simply because I have no respect for the entire concept? A comprehensive RfC on the matter would need to be what the discussion needs to be looking at, rather than just assuming what is being proposed is a given as seems to be the case, because there is an existing consensus against its existence, and there needs to be proof that the consensus has changed before anything further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is productive for me to engage further as I have stated everything for the record in that ideation discussion. Awesome Aasim 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for the edit Couriano (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, I don't think it's productive to keep reverting on the roblox guy's talk page. An admin will probably revoke their TPA soon enough. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock fraud is flat-out vandalism and reverting it is not subject to 3RR. I also contacted an admin on IRC to hasten the talk page revocation while I was rolling back their fraud. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about 3RR. Just saying it was a waste until TPA is revoked, which is why I stopped reverting. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	That took some effort. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It helps when one maintains a history of ArbCom cases and enforcement in one's userspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine so. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my RFPP request does not scream "I'm here to collaborate". I would encourage you to engage with fellow editors in a manner that might aim to inform them of the proper venues to discuss certain topics without implying that they've made some sort of egregious error. Thanks Jéské. :) 71.210.42.253 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, anyone unfamiliar with Wikipedia whose first edits are to pages under a contentious topic designation are making some sort of egregious error - they're choosing one of the worst and least-friendly-to-the-uninitiated areas to edit in, where their edits are going to be scrutinised and potentially weaponised by people who show far less restraint. I usually recommend users edit in areas not listed at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions until they are more familiar with Wikipedia and how its consensus model operates. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, although we are not simply talking about editing a main page, but a talk page. Limiting the discussions that occur on talk pages, even for contentious topics, is antithetical to the mission of the encyclopedia outside of some brand of blatant vandalism or trolling. Otherwise, how are editors generally supposed to engage in an intellectual analysis of the topics at hand? I have requested that El C downgrade or remove the talk page protection, I guess we'll see how it goes. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There exist topic areas where the availability of the talk page gets trumped by the sheer amount of partisan disruption that makes those talk pages useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]