User talk:FormalDude: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:52, 21 December 2022

This is FormalDude's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, and notify me with {{U|FormalDude}}.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
My talk page is watched by other experienced editors who may respond to your inquiries.
Consider sharing some music!

Click Here to Leave a New Message

Archived discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

: 2 months

This user is aware of the designation of the following contentious topics:

Are you listening to music right now?

Music is for the soul!
This is list of song recommendations from Wikipedians over the years. Feel free to add your own here! (please try to keep alphabetical order)

Rap/hip-hop

Pop

Rock and roll

Other great music

Contents

Adoption

I saw on the Adoptees page (Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters) That you are accepting new adoptees. I would like to be adopted to learn the ins and outs of editing. I've mostly done copy edits, but have added 1 citation on Transport Scotland, and have added Links to other articles on a few occasions. If you are willing to accept me, I live on the east coast and use EDT at the moment. I am available 5PM to 10PM on Weekdays and 10AM-10PM on weekends unless I say otherwise, which I don't often do. I have edited 27 articles last I checked. Random Editor135 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Random Editor135. I typically don't accept editors as new as you for adoption, but since you are willing to devote a significant amount of time, I may make an exception. What are your reasons for wanting to edit Wikipedia? What do you want to learn more about specifically? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a tech nerd and Floridian, so I can do articles about Florida and consumer electronics. I am in school still, so I am able to do articles about language arts and science, as those are my best classes. But I am unable to start until Friday as I have family coming over this week. Random Editor135 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Random Editor135: If you're still interested let me know and I'll setup your adoption program. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Random Editor135 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Random Editor135 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Random Editor135: Great, you can get started at User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Random Editor135 whenever you're ready. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and taken notes on User:FormalDude/Mentorship/Random Editor135, and I think I understand everything, so I am ready for the test whenever you are. Random Editor135 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Random Editor135: The test is up. Ping me on that page when you're done. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting edits based on false merits due to self published sources being allowed on information about themselves wp:ABOUTSELF, which itself is already used in the article

Bobisland (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did the same exact thing to me on Stacey Abrams' page. You arbitrarily undid a valid revert (for which I had provided a detailed explanation and verifiable internal links) without providing ANY reason whatsoever. Sean 2015 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still talking about a single edit from over a month ago? Wow that's pathetic. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still talking about a single edit from over a month ago? Wow that's pathetic.

And yet, YOU'RE editing articles about the KKK during the Civil War era, which happened - what? - 150 years ago. Is that pathetic too? I mean, you seem to think that anything from a month ago can't be discussed or revisited. Just applying your standards right back at you.

And when you first reverted the edit about Stacey Abrams (something you did without providing any sort of reason, citation or explanation) I DID in fact question you right then and there and you IGNORED it. Not only because you knew you were in the wrong, but because you HAD no valid reason for doing what you did. No explanation and no apology was given whatsoever. FormalDude Sean 2015 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't we start over and you give me either 1) an explanation for why you did what you did (i.e. reverting information I had deleted which was clearly bogus), or, 2) an apology and a promise you won't do this again. Sean 2015 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOLD and do not message me about this again. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when an RfC expires and nobody has closed it?

What to do about the Tudor Dixon RfC? Seems that is has expired, without closure. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now we wait. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, so we're in the queue somewhere. :)

Just wanted to be sure the RfC didn't disappear into the ether.

Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Just noticed that it was closed with no consensus. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't in any queue, and it can just disappear into the ether occasionally, per WP:RFCCLOSE. If we had had to wait longer I would've listed it at WP:Closure requests. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! Nice knowing better about how this works. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi sir/ma'am can you held me about Toddst1 (talk · contribs) he/she removing my edits about tge page Jam Agarao. — Einahr (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Einahr: The subject's birthday needs to be verified by a reliable, published source. Original research is not permitted. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bluevine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bluevine, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluevine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notices and restrictions

Hi. So, look, you're not in fact permitted to create edit notices that impose restrictions, as you did with Template:Editnotices/Page/Hunter Biden laptop controversy, nor choose the type of restriction (naked 1RR, CR, or EBRD). In future, please leave these decisions with admins. Thanks. El_C 06:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, El C. That's the only DS edit notice I've ever created, and I did it because someone complained at AE that they didn't know DS applied because there was no edit notice, and because DS enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages and this was not done despite an administrator declaring the page restricted. It was bad luck that I happened to incorrectly classify the type of restriction, but I wouldn't have done it in any other circumstance. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure np. It probably wouldn't even had been noticed by anyone had you not chose the more arcane EBRD over normal WP:1RR. Anyway, next time, just ask at WP:AN or whatever. Cheers! El_C 06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Now I'm a bit confused. It appears Doug Weller applied EBRD with this edit rather than 1RR. Was that a mistake by them? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. All due respect to Doug, EBRD is too complicated and has too many moving pieces (and unlike the other beyond-1RR restriction, WP:CRP, there isn't even a project page for it). Which is why no one was adhering to it. Outside of very small groups, it would really take an admin dedicated to that page for it to work. And those are hard to come by. El_C 07:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I've left a note about this on the article talk page. I strongly disagree that the 24-BRD is a bad restriction. I also do not see "nobody adhering to it". Do you have any specifics? I know that a few editors have been making undocumented allegations on user talk pages, but they don't provide diffs, and the only case I can find among those is the reinstatement of an inline article improvement template that arguably shouldn't have been removed. This 24-BRD has been in effect for quite some time on our most active AP articles, and it's worked very well and with few enforcement issues rising to require Admin attention. I really hope you'll reinstate the page restriction as it stood. SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, it is a bad restriction. Splitting the discussion will not work to alleviate that. And the fact is that a single admin creating this custom WP:ACDS page restriction, then adding it to multiple WP:AP2 pages, was done without ArbCom's consent. By all means, take it to WP:ARCA and ask them. El_C 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for you reply. Could you explain what you mean by splitting the discussion? Would you prefer I not respond on this page? Actually, in the recently completed review, Arbcom codified 24-BRD alongside 1RR and CR as one of three greenlit page restrictions. As I said on the article talk page and above, it has been highly effective at minimizing conflict and Admin intervention at our most active AP articles. The restriction on that page was not added by @Awilley:. In his earlier days in the DS area, Awilley had many missteps and made a few errors, some of which was discussed in the DS review and specifically deprecated. But hats off to him for devising this sanction, about which I've never heard any complaint. If you didn't want me to post this here, one of us can move it to the article page or whatever other location you prefer. Also I wonder whether you have the impression that this restriction was widely violated or caused problems at that page. I'm not aware of any except for the template glitch that FormalDude correcte. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is on the article talk page, where it belongs. You are splitting it by having it in two places at once. Please stop. Again, appeal at WP:ARCA, if you wish to see EBRD restored to that page. That's it. El_C 18:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware, I hope, that I only posted here because you did. If you had not split your own engagement, I would not have come to a random user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here, to FormalDude's talk page, about not creating WP:ACDS edit notices, SPECIFICO. Nothing to do with you. You've inserted yourself here, not the other way around. El_C 18:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the recently completed review, Arbcom codified 24-BRD alongside 1RR and CR as one of three greenlit page restrictions. @SPECIFICO Do you have a link to this case? A search of the archives turned up nothing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] there's associated discussion, I believe in the long archive of this year-long review process. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of touch ArbCom operating by inertia, okay, what else is new. But the fact is years ago there was overwhelming consensus among admins to pull the breaks on it. I guess lobbying for this arcane, user unfriendly restriction worked. Oh well. El_C 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO I see no discussion at the link you provided. I do see discussion after following a link back one page, to here, but there was not substantial discussion of the sanctions themselves - merely that codifying them was a good idea. That seems like tacit endorsement to me, at best.

@El C when/where was the discussion where admins reached consensus to "pull the breaks on it?" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lengthy discussion about beyond-1RR sanctions at WP:AN. I think it was back in 2019. I don't know how to easily find it right now. But it did set the tone for future AE practices in a significant way is the point. El_C 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C Might it be this one? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. El_C 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beekeeping

Hello, FormalDude. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Beekeeping at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978:

Thank you very much! ––FormalDude (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Black children as alligator bait for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black children as alligator bait is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black children as alligator bait until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Yngvadottir (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overflow from Talk:Kanye West § Removing "most influential" from the lede

Extended content

You did not actually cite that reason in your first revert. Make sure to cite your reasons the first time in order not to give off the appearance of WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. Citing the protection of the status quo as the sole reason for reverting when the edit has not yet been disputed is insufficient. I am glad to see that you're now participating in discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 06:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude, your edits are disruptive. You cited WP:STATUSQUO but have selectively ignored the first exception, you failed to add appropriate inline tags indicating the text is under discussion, and you ignore WP:SQS. There is clear consensus in the talk currently, to remove that unverifiable statement. — hako9 (talk) 09:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hako9: So instead of adding the inline tags yourself, you decide to just continue edit warring? And there's no consensus on the talk page at all. I suggest you self revert. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus "at all"? There are two editors in full agreement with a third, and a fourth who reluctantly conceded that "most influential" is not adequately supported. Right now, there is consensus that "influential" is inappropriate; an alternative has not yet been agreed upon. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you tone your language down, dude. Adding the inline tags was your job. Not "someone like me". I also suggest you to not edit articles in which you are so emotionally invested in. — hako9 (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never said "someone like you" to you, but if you want to keep trying to victimize yourself I guess I can't stop you. If adding the inline tags was my job and I forgot, that's a reason to add them yourself, not continue edit warring. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only one edit warring is you. What's with your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shera Bechard? The first thing you curiously did after replying to me here, is hop on there to make a point? — hako9 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policies

You might like to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and WP:BATTLEGROUND. — hako9 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit war you're gonna get templated for it, doesn't matter how experienced you may be, a warning notification is a requirement. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Machel

Hello, FormalDude,

Is there a reason you relisted this AFD discussion a half a day early? It was relisted like 10 hours ahead of time. There is no need to close AFDs early or rush the process. There is no hurry to do these steps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, won't happen again. Thanks Liz. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kara (South Korean group) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I noticed that you closed the AfD for Lara Nabhan as 'no consensus'. Is there a reason you did that as opposed to relisting the discussion? ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it had received thorough discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP agreement.

You’re suggesting that the AP is a trusted source of information is laughable. The KKK was created by Confederate veterans: Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe. They were Democrats, and fought for the confederacy which was Democrat. The idea that the KKK was a right wing creation is proof of leftist propaganda. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. For you to state that “We trust the AP fact checkers” shows your inability to read history. It makes you either wilfully ignorant, or unwilling to read history of the facts. You either know and are spreading propaganda, or just ignorant of history and trust the AP for your information. That’s lazy. 159.118.176.24 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. When and where did I state "We trust the AP fact checkers"? ––FormalDude (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) War Democrat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers	Seasons greetings!
Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, FormalDude! and best wishes for the New Year	Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes

Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ––FormalDude (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Beira's Place on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in Iraq -- Schwalbe

Referring to our sort-of ‘dispute’ on 19 Dec 2022 (over a citation of Schwalbe from 2004) .. don’t you ever have the experience, that you have said something to someone, or written him something, and afterward – five minutes or two days later – you think: well, I more or less said what I meant, but I could have said it neater, clearer, in more proper or (grammatically) correct or less ambigious language, etc.? Or, in citing someone else: well, I seem to have mixed my own feelings or ideas a bit too much into my representation of the reasoning of that other person, which makes my citation too ‘hybrid’, not consistent (or even not correct)? Or, in citing something from long ago (2004) where someone looks foreward to the future, but his future (= years after 2004) is presently (2022) partly past (e.g. 2010) but partly still future (eg 2030) and you get entangled and mixed-up (or confused) in how to represent all those past-, present- and future-tenses, concisely!?

Answering your last statement (“No, it is conditional based on the existing lack of stability and security”): Yes, that is correct. But in 2004, no one can say or predict, how long that existing situation will protract. Did it end in 2005, 2016, or ever or never? And will it ever or never end? So, why would Schwalbe have said/argued: .. ‘as long as stability were missing…’? We understand his argument, but to me it seems grammatically not very correct, not ‘complete’ enough ; and that would not be Schwalbe’s fault but mine, because I (tried to) cite(d) him. In saying: ‘.. would be missing…’ I think we represent more correctly, completely etc. the argument of Schwalbe. Corriebertus (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but the point Schwalbe was making was that democracy for Iraq would not be possible while the country severely lacks stability and security. So grammatically it seems more correct to say "were" because "would" leaves open the interpretation that it is a potential future problem rather than an existing problem. Perhaps there is a better way to word the sentence in general that avoids both of our concerns, but I'm not sure. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Red pill and blue pill on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ::::And when you first reverted the edit about Stacey Abrams (something you did without providing any sort of reason, citation or explanation) I DID in fact question you right then and there and you IGNORED it. Not only because you knew you were in the wrong, but because you HAD no valid reason for doing what you did. No explanation and no apology was given whatsoever. {{U|FormalDude}} [[User:Sean 2015|Sean 2015]] ([[User talk:Sean 2015|talk]]) 04:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 :So why don't we start over and you give me either 1) an explanation for why you did what you did (i.e. reverting information I had deleted which was clearly bogus), or, 2) an apology and a promise you won't do this again. [[User:Sean 2015|Sean 2015]] ([[User talk:Sean 2015|talk]]) 04:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
+::Read [[WP:BOLD]] and '''do not''' message me about this again. ––[[User:FormalDude|{{color|#004ac0|Formal}}{{color|black|Dude}}]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 == Administrators' newsletter – December 2022 ==