User talk:casualdejekyll

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Honestly think having a separate User and User talk page is entirely useless, so here you go. This is the part where I'd talk about my contributions, if I had any interesting ones.

DISCLAIMER: Before emailing me, consider that I reserve the right to publically post any private correspondence with me (that I am not prevented from sharing by legal documents, terms of use, NDAs, etc etc). If this prevents you from emailing me, then, well, don't email me. Not that hard. (The reason I publically make this disclaimer is to prevent a repeat of an incident that happened when I was a regular contributor to the SCP Foundation wiki. I very likely will not leak your emails especially if you specify that you want them to be private.)

You seem like a nice editor, so I wanted to give you this Vukky. (Vukky gives you a Vukky? Vukky vukky.) Best regards, Vukky ^Talk_Guestbook 08:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a heads up I replied to your questions re: my edit request at Talk:Travis Katz. If you have a second, would love your feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casualdejekyll. You wrote, But the specific Wiki-expert-edit to Trust Me I'm Biotechnologist connection is stale. [1]. Howso? Could you explain? --Hipal (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-expert-edit has no edits since 2015. No CU is going to even attempt to confirm that, the logs just don't go back that far. casualdejekyll 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never looked to see what was logged, no how long the logs were kept.

Maybe a SPI for the AfD accounts might be reasonable, given the article history? --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal - Definitely, there's been SPA's here since at least 2008. casualdejekyll 17:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Casualdejekyll,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

• Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
• templates to use and, of course:
• the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Autism Barnstar
		A little late, but thank you for redesigning The Autism Barnstar — it looks fantastic! ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advising the editor to notify the other editors on their talk pages. There were two other problems with the case. The more serious one is that there had been no discussion at the category talk page for several months. There had been discussion in 2021, but then it stopped. They need to resume trying to discuss, because opinions might have changed in a few months. The less important issue is that one of the editors has been banned. That just means that they should not try to invite that editor to take part in discussion. So I have closed the case and have told them to resume discussion at the category talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankya for advising. casualdejekyll 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter is now 40 years old, so yes, she is past the age of toy guns. Interetingly she is still involved with doll-size figures, as she creates charaters for stop-motion animation. David notMD (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. You didn't make a mistake. This was a problem that I have not seen before, and we can't anticipate every possible sort of weird behavior, let alone know exactly how to deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y casualdejekyll 11:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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

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

CUPIDICAE💕 20:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casualdejekyll! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CUPIDICAE💕 20:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not my article, @Praxidicae. Also, I'm a teahouse host

casualdejekyll 22:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you submitted it. CUPIDICAE💕 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Noeliagarone struggled with submitting and I just clicked the button for them. Go to their talk page, please. casualdejekyll 22:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfC helper script allows you to submit *as* another person so that you don't get these messages :) Use the little dropdown menu to change who submits it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Rules for Founding Fathers

 – casualdejekyll 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— MusikAnimal ^talk 23:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin - Took ya long enough! casualdejekyll 02:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to place a courtesy note here.

I reverted your edit to CENT. If someone hadn't already, I would have reverted the VP deletion too.

closing a thread once discussion has died down, might be one thing, but generally we probably shouldn't delete others' comments.

Anyway, just a quick note. I hope you have a great rest of your day. - jc37 05:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, have fun! casualdejekyll 15:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than clutter up the SPI case, I'll respond here. As I read it, the tone of your post was expressing incredulity at my stated findings, which is what I didn't appreciate. If that wasn't your intention, fair enough, but I'd urge you to refrain from making observations about how you would interpret CU results - just leave that to the people processing the report. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Sounds good to me casualdejekyll 13:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
280		Alive! (Kiss album) (talk)	Add sources
50		Albino Blacksheep (talk)	Add sources
31		Satanicpornocultshop (talk)	Add sources
80		Jonti Picking (talk)	Add sources
76		Wind Surf (ship) (talk)	Add sources
25		Joseph V. Cuffari (talk)	Add sources
161		Alan Becker (talk)	Cleanup
136		Perverted-Justice (talk)	Cleanup
61		Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Australia (talk)	Expand
4		Gepatschspeicher (talk)	Expand
556		Common ethanol fuel mixtures (talk)	Expand
70		Animutation (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
214		Archdemon (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17		Stanisław Wielgus (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
97		Ang Dating Daan (talk)	Merge
1,009		Eutrophication (talk)	Merge
97		Nutrient pollution (talk)	Merge
42		Dozer (talk)	Wikify
42		Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (talk)	Wikify
9		Curial response to Catholic sexual abuse cases (talk)	Wikify
4		Phantasmidine (talk)	Orphan
4		Koyo (band) (talk)	Orphan
2		Jasur Gaipov (talk)	Orphan
350		Jimmy Darts (talk)	Stub
10		Great Hiwassee (talk)	Stub
2		Jim Allen (Wyoming politician) (talk)	Stub
17		Peaceful as Hell (talk)	Stub
3		Luis Cabral (footballer) (talk)	Stub
5		Fényeslitke (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
55		LTE in unlicensed spectrum (talk)	Add sources
13		Lewis Downing (talk)	Add sources
830		Onision (talk)	Add sources
125		IAMX (talk)	Add sources
255		Demon Hunter (talk)	Add sources
695		Summer vacation (talk)	Add sources
457		FileZilla (talk)	Cleanup
243		Gene nomenclature (talk)	Cleanup
8		Traianopolis (Phrygia) (talk)	Cleanup
11		Karl Emil Franzos (talk)	Expand
214		Stick figure (talk)	Expand
12		Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Chile (talk)	Expand
302		Minecraft modding (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
332		Media portrayal of LGBT people (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,577		Hermes (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
229		Social stigma of obesity (talk)	Merge
4		Alpha-5 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (talk)	Merge
71		Chinky (talk)	Merge
198		Black crappie (talk)	Wikify
1,378		Astaroth (talk)	Wikify
10		Anti-Chinese violence in Washington (talk)	Wikify
11		Mrs. Space Cadet (talk)	Orphan
3		Juliana González Valenzuela (talk)	Orphan
3		Azemiopsin (talk)	Orphan
22		Eutropoflavin (talk)	Stub
4		Richarda Schmeißer (talk)	Stub
17		Alal (talk)	Stub
3		Heers Formation (talk)	Stub
18		Turtletown, Tennessee (talk)	Stub
8		Solasonine (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the Teahouse, next time just zap away obvious troll editors/entries such as that, don’t even respond to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the text written in this diff in my life. I would have zapped, if I had indeed seen it. @Celestina007

EDIT: After checking out the diffs a little more - this troll removed their text in the edit before I responded, so I never saw it casualdejekyll 00:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Not too worry, I figured as much. Celestina007 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am coming here per WP:MR. In this closing comment you wrote ” there is no consensus on whether to remove parks in occupied territories or not.” I counted six in favor of removal and two against (with one of those two having stated a different view if certain facts were proven, which were subsequently proven). Onceinawhile (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I join in that, the closure is not in accord with the discussion. I would prefer an administrative close.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say you should continue to discuss it; regardless, I count three in favor of removal and two against. @Selfstudier @Onceinawhile casualdejekyll 11:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the discussion:

• Explicitly in favor of removal (4): Onceinawhile, Selfstudier, Huldra and AusLondonder
• Did not provide an explicit view, but strongly implied via comment to be in favor of removal (2): Supreme Deliciousness and Dimadick
• Explicitly against removal (1): Animal lover 666
• Originally against removal, but with comment stating a potentially different view if certain facts were proven, which were subsequently proven (1): CLalgo

At worst there are 4 supporting removal, 2 against. At best there are 6-7 supporting removal, 1 against. Even the 4-2 is clear consensus.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness and @Dimadick did not "strongly imply" they were in favor of removal. I think the best way forward is to ask @CLalgo and them what they think, rather than bring an admin in when it doesn't have much to do with the move request at all. casualdejekyll 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we ask someone whose position is clear and in an obvious minority? I will wait for comments from the two other editors you have pinged and see what they have to say. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire reason to ask them is because their position is not clear. At least, since we both disagree on what their position is, then asking them would clarify. There is no need to drag me to an admin noticeboard because I closed a move request as "Not Moved" - something which you agree there was consensus to not move - and you disagree with a move-unrelated part of the close. This is no longer a move issue, this is a content issue, and for that, the correct path forward is discussion. casualdejekyll 13:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want the inaccurate close amended, so far you have refused to do that, I don't want problems when the offending entries are removed just because of a "no consensus" close. The close may be reviewed whether or not it is a move issue so that's wrong. While writing this, I would also politely request that you refrain in future from closing discussions that are in the AI area. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "AI area"?

No consensus existed at the time. Consensus can exist later - in fact, as soon as we get those pinged editors opinions, if you're right about how they feel, and you clearly believe you're right, than consensus would exist casualdejekyll 15:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation time!:
When assessing the consensus to remove content, I counted

Support removal: Auslondonder, Selfstudier, Huldra EDIT: Onceinawhile
Oppose removal: CLalgo, AnimalLover666

This is no consensus, by my assessment. EDIT: Nevermind. On further review I have found consensus to remove the occupied territory parks. casualdejekyll 15:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it doesn't change whether or not the page is moved, so I don't think move review is the proper process here. casualdejekyll 11:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to change your close to accurately reflect the discussion I will submit it for review at admin noticeboard. It would be better to stop dancing around the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse concerns that the language used in the close was inappropriate and did not accurately reflect consensus regarding removal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]