User talk:BoldGnome

Sydney photomontage RFC

Just thought i'd let you know, there's a redrafted RFC going on in the Sydney talk page for the photomontage. And yes, AussieLegend and HiLo are still going at it like muppets. Lol don't they have actual lives outside of wikipedia? - Cement4802 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cement4802! No, it's pretty hilarious how these blokes with no idea of how to engage and work with others spend all their time on a project requiring exactly that. Cjhard (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Yapperbot (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Citatoon bot proposal

Hi. I've withdrawn my proposal, because I believe -- from the vociferous response to it -- that I'm missing something. However, it was never offered in bad faith, and I would appreciate it if you would strike that comment, even though I collapsed the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Frank Ocean

There is an RfC about a topic which you have previously been involved in here ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Peculiar, out-of-nowhere aggression

I'm not sure where that peculiar, out-of-nowhere aggression on a random user I'd interacted with came from.

As far as I can tell the only issue I can find in which we've ever interacted was one where I agreed with you so I have no idea what your deal is here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't personal or about agreement or disagreement on content disputes. Engage with the project properly or not at all. --Cjhard (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Peter Walsh (Victorian politician)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Peter Walsh (Victorian politician), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Last good version?"

On Anat Schwartz you undid all my edits claiming you're rolled back to the "last good version". The version you rolled back to is a very partial translation of the original article; it holds factual errors and non-NPOV wording; it's based on sources which wikipedia defines as biased and unreliable; a d it was created with a FALSE CLAIM "translated from the Hebrew version". Can you please explain how come you find that version better than my version, which is true to the Hebrew article, thoroughly NPOV and uses only reliable sources? Thanks, Ithamar איתמראשפר (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ithamar, apologies for the brusqueness of the "last good version" description. I had a number of concerns regarding your edits, starting with the removal of Al Jazeera-sourced content on the basis of it being unreliable, which is incorrect (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). In any event, the article is subject to the contentious topics procedure and requires a user to be logged in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days to edit it. All the best. --Cjhard (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cjhard, it's a bit strange that because of your concern about my accidental removal of one reliable source you reverted to a version which cites several unreliable and biased sources, such as Mondoweiss, Counterpunch and Daily Beast (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). I've been an active Wikipedian since 2019 (mostly in Hebrew), and as far as I understand the guidelines you were supposed to correct my mistake, i.e revert only the reliable source and leave out the biased ones. By adding the information from several biased sources, you have created an article which is far less reliable and NPOV than my version. In addition, you have deleted her entire education, as well as most of her works and her professional achievements as a multi-award winning documentarist, which canvses her as a "non-journalist who came out of nowhere", which goes against Wikipedia:Canvassing, and returned sheer errors such as her serving in a non-existent air force base in Modi'in, non-NPOV claims such as calling the NYT article "controversial" etc.

Since I don't want to start an edit-war, I have to ask you to kindly re-insert the good and reliable information that you have deleted, and erase the information based on those biased and unreliable sources. Cheers, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No. Cjhard (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you capable of providing a reason WHY you wouldn't reinsert good and notable information and erase canvassing informatino based on biased and unreliable sources? איתמראשפר (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

איתמראשפר Continuing to discuss this is a violation of WP:ARBECR. You have been warned by multiple editors, including ScottishFinnishRadish. Please stop discussing it until you meet the requirements. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history at South Park: Joining the Panderverse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Removing critical reviews just because you believe they are “content farming” is ridiculous. You’ve had this discussion before. SanAnMan (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)