User talk:DeCausa

Jesus Article

Once again User:Neplota is unnecessarily editing the Jesus article when the topic has been discussed extensively at Talk:Jesus/Archive 134. Once again thank you for your help in reverting but I am just letting you know that I expect this to continue as I have even warned the user yet they continue to edit without consensus. Thank you. Thebighomie123 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your thoughtful and helpful advice about the AN stuff, much appreciated, and I really mean that. But I also have a request, just a request, not a requirement. Please consider deleting "Step away, indeed." The comment works fine without it, and I expect that that last sentence will be used against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Page move

I think you mean "List of rulers in Wales"? Peter Ormond 💬 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Note

Good Morning @DeCausa

someone recently made edits on both Saudi Arabia and Flag of Saudi Arabia, placing the main flag as variant while the other as main, I request your kind consideration to revert the edits as the flag is currently on a dispute situation and there's ongoing discussion over this issue on Wikimedia talk page which means any edits may affect the process.

Kind Regards 91.25.189.139 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The RFC can be found here. Your input would be appreciated! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: thanks. I'm not really familiar with Commons policies and don't really participate there. The thread at Talk:Saudi Arabia is independent of any discussion or consensus at Commons and it's here that any binding decision on what flag should be used for the KSA article at en.wp will be made rather than at Commons. You're welcome to take anything I say there to Commons if you think it's of any use. DeCausa (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mozart

I have no intention to enter any infobox discussion, but keep watching. What I saw in 2021 was Ian Fleming and Stanley Kubrick, with the closure of Fleming much to my liking. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

George VI, Elizabeth II & Charles III

Howdy. I don't like having "Head of the Commonwealth" at the top of Charles III's infobox, anymore then you do. But that was the RFC result of George VI & Elizabeth II. PS - If you want to open another RFC on that topic, I wouldn't object. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reign of Elizabeth II

AfD with pleasure, but please finish the job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Give us a chance! In the middle of doing it. I hate impenetrable WP processes!!!! DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Now done. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest the use of Twinkle? All becomes simple then.

I respect your choice to nominate it for deletion. I've left a comment at the discussion and will remain neutral 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In 12 years I think I've probably nominated for deletion 3 times. When you do something regularly on WP it's all fine but as soon as you don't it feels like you have to spend a whole evening to work it all out. I never understand why everything has to be so clunky. Take the point on Twinkle - will remember to look at it when I do it next time...in 3 years. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Manual AfD is a swine!

I do commend to you nominating poor material for deletion. We have more rubbish than you can shake a stick at. A challenge when you do very few is getting the rationale right, but that ought never to matter, because others will likely propose further additions to it

This one's rationale looks fine to me. Watching and waiting will be fun. I genuinely have no opinion either way. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop this

stop this. You've been told multiple times

You wrote this. This is not true. Please provide diffs of your claim.

On the other hand, you reverted without talk page discussion. Please do not do this. It is wrong and hostile. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your user page says you are a lawyer! You can do better than that. Blanket revert is what dumb people do. You have good training and are capable of expressing your thoughts well. Please do it. I have confidence that you can! Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are the multiple times: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You're completely clueless ("Blanket revert is what dumb people do") and have tried everyone's patience. Continue to edit war and to post ridiculous nonsense on the article talk page I foresee your time on Wikipedia won't be long. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is because some WP editors are very warlike and seek to punish and hurt others.

Instead, there should be civil discussion.

Buckingham Palace is clearly hiding something. It's likely because they want privacy, but that is still hiding something. This is NOT a conspiracy theory. Reliable source do write about the Palace being tight lipped. (See talk page for reliable source citations). Therefore, we must be very careful so we are not the mouthpiece of the Palace. We can do this by examining what they said. For example, they did not say she received any treatment. They only said that medical supervision was recommended. There are reliable sources that the Queen was not taken to the hospital. However, there are no reliable sources for the exact medical cause of death. There is a listed cause on the death certificate but there are scholarly citations that "old age" is not a medical cause. There is a way to satisfy both truth AND reliable sources. That is to say the death certificate list old age. Whether to add other information about listing old age is probably beyond the scope of this article since Wikipedia is generally not for really detailed scholarly knowledge.

Good evening. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Look at the stark difference between your behavior and DrKay's behavior. He shows maturity and insight in his talk page about the Queen. You threaten. That is not a sign of a good Wikipedian. Please don't be like this. CandyStalnak (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep your nonsensical ramblings off my talk page. There's nothing interresting or "scholarly" about your absurd conspiracy theories. DeCausa (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Change from 'create' to 'appointed'

Thanks for that correction, it took some deep diving on the net to find that created is appropriate for the situation. Tebrennan (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some editors say many readers won't understand the specialist use of "created" but the problem is no one has come up with an alternative that reliable sources also use. "Gave him the title of" is probably the closest. They don't use "appointed" which doesn't work because of its hereditary nature. DeCausa (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A thought

I am thinking Wikipedia needs to create a system where there is a built in periodic review of topicbans, to consider if they are still needed, if their limits are reasonable, etc., that is either pre-established or at least does not require the person they are posed against to actively petition for their change. Because the current system is clearly not working as has been seen with what happened. The amount people insisted I could not even discuss anywhere even if a very borderline case was maybe within the scope of the ban, made it so I did not even feel I could turn to another editor for advice on the matter. Plus, the last time I turned to another editor for advice they told me it was best I not participate in the Arbcom discussion against me, and later on in the Arbcom discussion people justified their very harsh penalties in part because I had not participated, so it is very hard to figure out what editors may give good advice, especially when you live in mortal fear of asking, because asking amiss is a reason for people to attack for issues that go way back. I think at one ANI against me someone once brought up an issue that had occurred 8 years before that. I think I was unwise in the wording I used, but the biggest problem I have here is that no matter how simple the problem is I not only cannot fix it but not even in any way make any indication to others there might be something that needs to be fixed, and on long articles it is not enough to read the intro, and go through the categories and determine that none of them have anything to do with religion, but I have to read every single paragraph, even if the edit is something that is an obvious discrepancy between the lead and a paragraph. Looking back I should not have made this request at all, and I should have only focused on something very narrow, but punishing me with an indefinate block (that in theory can be appealed after a year) for bad judgement on how to ask for a change in a topic ban makes no sense. I say the appeal can be appealed after a year "in theory", because no one has explained at all what would change in a year to cause people to even consider lifting a ban. In fact, those who argue "this is good for his mental health to stop him from doing something he really enjoys", show no evidence they would ever vote to overturn. Ever. No matter what happens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Then there are statements like " I dont particularly find your views on a number of subjects all that endearing," from people supporting. How is that relevant to anything at all here. Unless they think that we should have articles with categories that totally do not match the content of the article and directly contradict them, what subject view is at play in whether I should be able to edit Wikipedia? OK, maybe my biggest annoance is people can and are basing this whole process on things that happened months ago, that have resulted in more regulations of what I can do. Which does not seem fair to use that as a basis for regulate me off of Wikipedia entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Re: "badgering", the principles I try to follow are (i) not to repeat myself in replies to multiple !votes, (ii) not to repeat what another editor has said in response to a !vote, (iii) never to add multiple comments at the same level of a discussion, and (iv) when replied to, never to reply at greater length than the reply I received. While I'm sure I sometimes fail at each of these, I'm trying to follow the principles involved in BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are telling me about your principles. Either you accept the point I and the other editor made or you don't. From my point of view, it's very noticeable how often you feel the need to tell the opposers that they are wrong: 1 in 3 opposers have comments from you directed at them - a very high proportion for a thread with so many editors posting. To at least 3 opposers you played the same emotive card of 'would you let Jews/other minority be treated the same way': [6], [7] and more subtly [8]. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you see that question as an emotive card rather than a logical comparator?

More generally, I don't think my comments (apart from some repetition of that one issue) have involved making the same argument over and over, to different people - the key point of BLUDGEON. Indeed, I have tried to develop my thinking progressively and to avoid repetition as much as I can. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a dog whistle to Reductio ad Hitlerum. But the main point is the repetition. I haven't gone through all your comments because that would require more interest than I can muster, but I very much doubt that was the only instance of repetition. DeCausa (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it seriously isn't the Nazi card, just because "Jews" were an example I chose. The idea that any comparisons to antisemitism are therfore a dog whistle Nazi comparison seems bizarre to me and vaguely offensive.

My point was simply to question whether certain editors were treating anti-trans rhetoric differently than they would treat antisemitic or racist rhetoric. Frankly I find it very hard to believe that members of the community would be promoting such WP:BURO concerns as "it isn't a pattern yet" if an editor (much less an admin) had said that we have too many Jewish, or black, or female administrators, while leaving a trail of a handful of related comments to verify that yes, this really is what the editor thinks. How my comment transforms in your mind into Reductio ad Hitlerum I have no real idea, and I'm not sure I want to know. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps the best argument that you're not bludgeoning a discussion isn't engaging in a back and forth about it on the talk page of a user that said you're bludgeoning a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think moving a discussion to a more appropriate venue ever counts as BLUDGEON. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)