User talk:Thinker78

Wikimood
[purge]	[edit]

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

The temptation to edit war or throw bane accusations at times is so great. How dare another editor revert my edits or dare to contradict me? The chakras are disturbed, the body seething in anger. Such are the animal impulses of human nature that need to be under control. Let patience, diplomacy, cool reasoning, and proper process win the day. Thinker78 (talk)

Archives

2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2022 2023

Please proofread the daily tip before it goes "live"... It's displayed below two days early, so it can be error-checked and made ready-to-display for all time zones. Some tips are obsolete. So we need new tips too. Please share your best tips and tip ideas at the Tip of the day department. edit Day-after-next's tip of the day... How to change your username Where to request changing your account name depends on the type of rename: Simple – For renames to usernames that are not already taken. Check here to see whether the username you want is available. Usurpations – For renames to usernames that are already taken and have no significant edits. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Changing username   Username policy   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd-day-after-next}}

Category:1940s assassinated French politicians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Thinker78 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by stabbing has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by method has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by beating has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by decapitation has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by explosive device has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by firearm has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1940s assassinated French politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Thinker78 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated politicians by political orientation has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated anti-capitalist politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated anti-communist politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated liberal politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated conservative politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd stand a better chance of keeping categories at the intersection of politician deaths/assassinations if you made a page about the scholarly literature on the topic before the category. Mason (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is excessive deletionism. I added my full comment at the entry. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you'd think that. I still think you'd make a stronger case in general if you can point to a page about the intersection. Mason (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Democratic Party (United States) politicians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison Can you refactor it to the entry regarding Assassinated politicians by political orientation, it belongs with the others, to avoid duplication of discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate it. And even though we disagree about intersections, I appreciate the effort and energy you put into categories. I think your efforts are a net-positive to wikipedia. Mason (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mason. I appreciate it. Diversity of minds contributes to a proper balance in the world. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinstate dumb/trolling Talk page comments. It only feeds the trolls. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage Please don't unduly remove the content dispute of talk pages. That's what talk pages are for, to discuss things. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit-warring this crap back in and are at WP:3RR. Please work with (not against) admins to remove trolling from Wikipedia. Hint: the idea that naming the chemtrail conspiracy theory is "racist" is either trolling or from somebody WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, your assertion that I am at 3RR is false. I have reverted twice in all time in that talk page. Second, you for some reason also decide to ignore the civility policy and use an inappropriate adjective, namely the word "dumb" to refer to the post of the ip user. Third, as I stated in my edit summary that you apparently chose to ignore, be mindful of WP:TPYES, which states,

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach.

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be able to distinguish between useful contributors and unwanted disruptors. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again. Regard that as avoiding disruptive edit warring if you like, but a more accurate assessment would be that it is to avoid the destructive effect on the community of such comments becoming common. If you have a point you would like to make about the article or whatever, make it, but don't edit war to restore nonsense from who-knows-who. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block. For starters, you did not even attempt to find out my rationale, even though I cited relevant Wikipedia guidance. The assume good faith guideline states,

When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.

It completely perplexes me why you chose to ignore the relevant guidance I added to the edit summaries of my two reverts. The Good practices for talk pages (WP:TPYES) I cited states,

Do not bite the newcomers: If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake; gently point out their mistake (referencing relevant policies and guidelines) and suggest a better approach.

The edit the ip user made in my opinion was not vandalism nor trolling. They made a request that the term "conspiracy theorist" be removed. I understand this term is considered pejorative among some people. They further stated it was "racist". The use of this word in my experience elsewhere is not limited to racial topics, but to denote an action as inappropriate as racism. I see it as a content dispute and it should have been addressed like that. Is there a chance it was trolling? Yes. But again, Wikipedia tell us to assume good faith.

The fact that Bon Courage did not address the concerns I pointed out in my edit summary and even used incivility in theirs, made me revert them as well. Your characterization of my edits as edit warring also fails to assume good faith and mischaracterizes my record. I personally try to stick to a 1 revert personal guideline out of principle, in general. Only a minority or a few of times I make a second revert. But I point out that making a second revert is backed by POLICY

Per the Consensus through editing policy states,

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

I find it really rude from you that you completely ignore collegiality and my years of experience in the project when you immediately decided to threaten me with a block, when it is evident I did not make an arbitrary revert. I researched and cited relevant Wikipedia guidance for my reverts. You did not appear to have cared and did not even appear to respect the consensus policy.

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

With all due respect I feel you are abusing your administrator powers in this case. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78, you've picked a strange cause to attach yourself to. A drive-by comment asserting that calling conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists is racist is at best obvious nonsense, and at worst trolling. Moving on to tone-police editors who describe nonsense as nonsense is a waste of your time and ours. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion and Johnuniq:, this is a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive. See User talk:Thinker78/Archives/2023#Block of 99.196.130.183 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully inquired and challenged your block at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I stand against undue censorship, per the spirit and principle of the Wikipedia is not censored policy. I think making Wikipedia a more welcoming environment per the civility policy and other Wikipedia guidance is not wasting my time or of editors respectful of others. In addition, you seem to forget that in Wikipedia there are long discussions even for the placement of a comma. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing this for some time.[1]. I strongly suggest you stop. Note that my comment does not make me involved, you, like some others I've seen recently, don't understand that that means. See WP:INVOLVED Doug Weller talk 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would point out that reverting my removal of a trolling comment doesn't make me involved either - clear-cut vandalism and trolling are exempt from those considerations, and the comment that you restored was sufficiently absurd for that to apply. Anyone who intentionally restores vandalism, trolling or BLP violations takes ownership of that edit and is, by implication, endorsing it. You intentionally restored a minor troll’s disruptive edit, apparently to make a point. That by itself is not block-worthy in most cases unless you edit-war (which you were also doing), but your pursuit of some kind of justification is ill-advised, and creates a time-sink as you bounce from place to place seeking justice or retribution, scolding anybody who disagrees. I would probably not have blocked you, I having made the initial revert, in any case short of gross abuse, as the inevitable ensuing accusations of involvement become a distraction that isn't worth the time to refute, when other admins are looking in and can do what's necessary without giving you the drama you seem to be seeking. I think you're too interested in wiki-litigation and argumentation. Acroterion (talk)

Our community so rarely smacks down ne'er-do-wells that we should celebrate it when they do. There is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Wikipedia. While I get your point, I think it is unwise for you to defend this class of troll simply because you have more willingness to suffer fools. Please let the community do what it does. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: You need to learn to distinguish good-faith attempts at improving article content and drive-by disruption. Here is an example of the former. In contrast, an accusation of racism thrown in your interlocutor's face is hardly a way of starting a productive discussion; rather, it's a show of displeasure with Wikipedia, not an attempt at improving it. Such disruptive edits are normaly removed, as we have talk page guidelines for a reason. I suggest you read these guidelines and cease defending disruption in the name of misinterpreted lack of censorship. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Kindly explain why you think I am making persistent disruptive edits and how you blocking me is appropriate being an involved editor in a dispute with another administrator and other editor. I wrote the reasons why the other administrator in my opinion had acted inappropriately in the Chemtrails thread above. You delved in the dispute writing an accusation against me, "this is a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive". I stated and asked, I respectfully inquired and challenged your block [of another editor] at that time, citing relevant guidance. Now you come making accusations against me. Are the accusations unbiased and objective? I have to ask. You did not answer the question and instead proceeded to block me. I believe you should have left it to other administrators to review my case and I don't think it was appropriate from you to block me in this instance. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Please provide diffs of relevant instances of "forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. Also, the diffs of failing to listen. And again you were an involved editor that delved in a dispute so I believe you acted inappropriately in blocking me, specially when I questioned you and you proceeded to block me. You have not addressed this. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4].

Your disagreeing with my actions does not make me involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thinker78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are reasons I believe why the block against me is incorrect.

1. Blocking administrator (ScottishFinnishRadish) stated as a reason to block me You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed. They produced the diffs [5] [6], which are edits I made following the Dispute Resolution policy which I had read beforehand.
   1. Said policy, under Requesting other editors' help for content disputes#Related talk pages or WikiProjects, states,

      If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page.

      1. I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, i publicized in the talk page of Talk page guidelines. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the Assume good faith guideline.
   2. The forum shopping policy states,

      Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

      1. I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the ones I mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input, regardless of whether it was in favor or against my position, thence not constituting forum shopping.
2. Blocking admin also stated as a reason for block, You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. As evidence they provided this diff, regarding my complaint to the other administrator (Johnuniq) that warned me of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. I simply provided my rationale for my previous revert, evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and complained about the threat of a block (which took me really by surprise). Therefore, I did not fail to listen as I did not do the action the other administrator warned me against. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your interpretations above are incorrect and that this is a good block. I too would advise you to read WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wont get anywhere with the above....best read over WP:NOTTHEMMoxy- 04:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I explained my rationale with basis in policy. You only stated a subjective opinion with no explanation or clarification whatsoever. As such I question the legitimacy of this denial. Per the consensus policy, under the principle of section Consensus-building#In talk pages,

The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I think this principle is specially important when administrators enforce blocking editors or takes part in the process, like in this case, an appeal.

Per the policy on Administrators, under Expectations of adminship,

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools.

Therefore, I ask for proper clarification on why you think my interpretations are incorrect and why you mention WP:NOTTHEM. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and endorse the comments of the blocking admin. You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78 Folks are mentioning WP:NOTTHEM because your unblock request focuses on the behavior of others rather than considering how your actions contributed to the situation. (Even if you may not agree with others actions, it's in your best interest to consider alternative perspectives and focus on the things you have control over moving forward) Mason (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, you are wikilawyering. It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now if kowtow. That's how the system has always worked. No one has ever successfully argued their way out of a block. Further, consider that no other editor agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you were in the wrong, so maybe you really are OR you are too far from political consensus here to continue to edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thinker78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are reasons I believe why the block against me is incorrect. I will proceed to provide context and explain my rationale. Note: This is a new appeal after I was advised "you may make a new unblock request for someone else to review."

Brief: Following guidance, I made edits and two requests. I did not do forum shopping but instead I followed proper Wikipedia guidance. I heeded the warning of an administrator. I did not fail to listen. Following the fundamental principles of the Five Pillars, my edits were not disruptive but rather contribute to a better encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, in an environment where editors should treat each other with respect and civility and understanding that Wikipedia has no firm rules, where the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording.

Details

1. Context: I was provided two diffs [7] [8] as justification for my blocking, with the statement, You were yet again forum shopping in places where user conduct is not discussed.
   1. These are edits I made after reading beforehand the Dispute Resolution policy. Said policy, under Requesting other editors' help for content disputes#Related talk pages or WikiProjects, states,

      If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. For example, a dispute at the article Battle of Stalingrad could be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page.

      1. I followed said guidance. The dispute at hand was about content in a talk page. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of Talk page guidelines. It is also related to assuming good faith about what the ip posted. Therefore, I publicized in the talk page of the Assume good faith guideline.
   2. The forum shopping policy states,

      Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.

      1. I followed said guidance. The only two requests for input I made (the diffs of my edits mentioned above) were neutrally worded and I just requested additional insights because my talk page has very limited views and I only wanted more uninvolved input for more clarity, regardless of whether it was in favor or against my position, thence not constituting forum shopping but instead being reasonable requests based on policy.
2. Context: I was also provided with the diff [9] as further justification for my blocking, with the statement, You are also failing to listen to advice and warnings. For necessity of context, I include this info: an administrator (not the one blocking), had warned me of a block if I reinstated "obvious nonsense again". I did not reinstate. Therefore, I did not fail to listen to the warning. I simply had provided my rationale for my previous revert, had evidenced that my reverts were not edit warring but were according to policy, and had made a complaint.
3. I have to point out my concerns that this block has the effect in practice (not saying it was the intention of the blocking admin) of ignoring and bypassing the consensus policy.
   1. The explanations I was provided about my reverts by editors in the thread of the dispute that generated these proceedings (named Chemtrails; above) could have been provided to me without any need of a block or any further issue. A discussion would have ensued and I would have respected the consensus at the end of it.
   2. I have to mention I had no plans whatsoever to continue reverting past the 2 times I had reverted because I am aware of 3rr. My record of not engaging in edit warring can speak by itself. Plus I have had for a while now a personal voluntary policy of trying to stick to a 1rr, and only sometimes I revert 2 times (which is within Wikipedia policy).
4. Finally, I am against undue censorship which is what motivated this whole dispute in the first place. Here in Guatemala where I live the government even used to torture people to death for discussing the wrong things or reading the wrong books. My mother actually disposed of all the books in my house when I was a kid for fear we would suffer such a fate.

   When I see (seldom) what in my opinion is an undue revert even of what seems to be trolls, I analyze it, I investigate the context, and if it is not indeed just vandalism or unconstructive edits (which sometimes I also remove myself), I restore them.

   I stand for the principle and spirit behind the policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the neutral point of view, respecting relevant Wikipedia guidance.

   *Per the Guide to appealing blocks, I provided evidence why I did not disrupt Wikipedia and why my edits were and are legitimate. Thanks for your attention.

   Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For wikilawyering and timewasting unblock requests following on wikilawyering and timewasting talkpage editing, your talkpage access has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. I should perhaps warn you that the UTRS admins will also soon enough get tired of having their time and patience wasted, so in your own interest, try to be more concise. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Normally a successful unblock request will take responsibility for the behavior that caused the block and promise to improve the behavior / not to repeat it. In this unblock request, are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by making them spend a bunch of time on a low effort troll comment? Are you taking any responsibility for bothering your fellow editors by forum shopping? Is it possible you are being a bit too inflexible and failing to calibrate when half a dozen other editors are letting you know that your behavior is bothering them? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: You just wanted to argue. If you want to just pick a fight with other editors, then you need to choose your battles more carefully. See my comment up the page - the idea that the comment you reverted was actually a serious recommendation for improvement to the encyclopedia is just absurd. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just do 1 and 3. First, the pages you posted to state clearly at the top This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. They are not noticeboards. This is not the first time you've gone to the talk pages of random guidelines over an editor behavior complaint. Third, as far as consensus goes you should read the room a bit and look at the myriad responses here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Thinker78: Please keep in mind that blocks are there to prevent disruption. After you are unblocked, I hope you will be careful not to restore obvious trolling to Wikipedia, especially when experienced editors are telling you not to. I hope you agree that all this is not worth another, much longer block, right? — — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thinker78. You have written me an e-mail asking to have your talkpage access restored. I will reply here: The way I see it, you have been exhausting the patience of administrators by submitting several long elaborate unblock requests and, in between, arguing in a bureaucratic way with the blocking admin and the admin who declined your first request. See Vexatious litigation. That's why I revoked your talkpage access. You can discuss any problems you see with my rejection of your request for unblock, and/or my revocation of talkpage access, with the admins at UTRS. It is not an inferior option to write to them and explain why you think you should be unblocked and/or have your tpa back. It won't be as public, that's all. UTRS admins, feel free to unblock and/or restore tpa without consulting me, if you think it appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 01:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Conservative politicians indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I could not participate in the discussion because I was blocked. But I think with a high degree of certainty that Conservative politicians is a very legitimate category that only needs populating, something I could not do also for the above reason. I mean there is the Category: Liberal politicians but for some reason, its widely known and still current counterpart, Conservative politicians, doesn't have a category. Doesn't make sense. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the principle under which you restored the talk page comment. To most editors, though, it's clear that this is a trolling comment - apart from anything else there's clearly nothing "racist" about calling chem-trails a "conspiracy theory". If it's not clear to you, even in retrospect, you need to steer clear of intervening in this kind of thing in future.

Having said that, I do think admins could have been a little more gentle in the subsequent events. That, however, is not something that is likely to change overnight, so stepping lightly is advised. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi - Perhaps you can look into this matter. My Userpage has been "played with" without any record of the manipulation in the history. The images have been moved about repeatedly in recent months, but I have made no adjustments prior to these changes. When I manually restore the content, the images are soon moved to make them asymmetrical. This is a form of "soft" vandalism, is it not? Can you provide some advice on how to detect who is doing this? 36hourblock (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thinker78 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Burundian monarchs has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DTTR. There was no need of this. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it after I was actually blocked for reverting and talking about it by administrators who I question if they know what they are doing or if they know about the consensus policy. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unfortunate but you are not alone with wrongly getting blocked.

I plan to restore that IP and collapse our discussion. Let me know. Capitals00 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that was unexpected. I appreciate it! Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: This part, You reverted an ip post, claiming later that it was "blatant trolling". Investigating the claims of the ip, I found they were valid and submitted the relevant sources in said talk page., seemed pretty pertinent to me. That it was framed with some boilerplate AGF template content is kinda irrelevant. (That said, lots of us make perhaps "over-protective" mistakes when it comes to IP-address editors adding/changing things without citing sources adequately or at all; mistakes definitely happen in that direction, and I've made some of those myself.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for doing it this way, but only for a minute left before break ends. Can you check your statements for word count? You might need an extension or trimming to get under 500 words. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I have made a request to the clerks for an extension. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've participated in discussions on the Joan of Arc talk page, and I've begun a consensus discussion there now. Can you offer your opinion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream Just let me deal with the issue I am having now. Although I don't promise anything because I may get banned from the project, things are not looking great and the system in Wikipedia seems to be compromised. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. Your willingness to assist is appreciated either way, and I hope everything works out for you. And yeah, I've noticed more than one instance of a "compromise" to our system over the past year or three myself. Nightscream (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You two apper to be operating under a wrong general presumption. Let me correct you: the world is not a pleasant flowery meadow. Just count all the wars at any moment in time. Overly optimistic presumptions are a common cause of errors and failures. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I was a union official for a few years and I know how management of large or small companies can behave in unfair, inappropriate and unprofessional ways. People in power in general do things just because they can if there are no enough checks and balances to incentivize them to instead have the standard of doing the right thing.

I can see that in Wikipedia the situation is not that different. After all, Wikipedia is also run by people. In fact, now I think that even criticizing the hierarchy in Wikipedia can lead to arbitrary bans. But whatever, I simply would try further dispute resolution or spend my time in other platforms. Also notice how some editors may provide diffs of this comment to the Committee for some mysterious reason, I guess because they like me very much. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate that this is exactly the third time that someone has responded affirmatively to my thoughts. As far as I can tell, the previous two were: [10] and [11] Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My essay of sorts at meta:User:SMcCandlish may be of related interest. WP (and WMF) has a systemic organizational-lifecycle problem, in which it is firmly stuck in an infantile "visionary" stage, dominated by software/tech people close to its founder, and not maturing into a public-interest NGO run by people experienced in the management and development of nonprofit organizations. I've professionally been through this problem multiple times (at EFF, and later at CRF). It's painful, but the shift has to eventually happen or things do not go well (EFF made the transition and has blossomed; CRF failed to, and died).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this ties into a long-standing WMF organizational lifecycle problem, of operating like a software company with a userbase instead of as a public-interest nonprofit with a constituency. Interesting point. I do think this reflects the situation where many ips and new users are treated with undue intolerance, a measure of contempt, and not really in a welcoming manner. I mean if many admins don't treat collegially experienced editors, much less they may be inclined to do so with ips or new users.

close to its founder at least in Wikipedia I heard otherwise. Jimbo reportedly had an arbitration case against him and it ended up in not a good way for him. Check out his permissions. He is listed now only as founder. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thinker78,

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and now the case request I have recused from because I was recipient of one of these messages too and am annoyed to see this behavior hasn't changed since August 2022.

Can you stop attempting to educate experienced users about basic policies, please? Disagreement with experienced contributors doesn't mean that they misunderstand a policy.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I forgot to mention the unblock discussion above, which is also full of this and even led to talk page access removal.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree At this time, yours seem to be an arbitrary comment not based on Wikipedia guidance. You did not actually based your request in ANY Wikipedia policy or guideline or at least you did not mention ANY such. The fact you are an administrator and arbitrator doesn't mean you can arbitrarily command others to do whatever you want if what you want is not based on proper Wikipedia guidance. Kindly cite relevant Wikipedia policies, not random articles or essays. The fact that I have called you out and publicly opposed your candidacy for arbitrator makes your request the more so inappropriate. I have to mention also the absurdity of your request because if you see in my talk page, other editors routinely contact me to criticize me or to point out Wikipedia guidance. This is a normal way for editors to work out their differences and build Wikipedia using the consensus process. Also, editors sometimes point out Wikipedia guidance in article or other space. Thinker78 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior I have complained about is a pattern of editing that disrupts [others'] progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. If you can't see this, the community will sooner or later ban you to prevent it from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I advise that you read the consensus policy, the dispute resolution policy, and the administrator policies. If someone is not adhering to Wikipedia guidance in their edits, anyone can actually point relevant Wikipedia guidance, because that is the consensus process. If you fail to understand this, you have no business being an administrator and much less an arbitrator. Thinker78 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again! Stop! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what ToBeFree said. I have been watching this entire situation since the case request filing and my view is you are essentially going to end up getting yourself blocked unless you change your behavior. It is considered in poor taste to quote policies verbatim to attempt to educate experienced editors who are already aware of such policies. A lot of these people have been here much longer than you and have much more experience. There are multiple ways of going about disputes and violations of guidelines and policies, but this is clearly the wrong path. If you don't listen to what others are telling you regarding this, you will end up banned by the community. Noah, AA^Talk 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah So in your view if you have more edits than another editor that editor should not criticize you nor should point out any Wikipedia guidance? Thinker78 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, when a semi-experienced editor makes four reverts, I usually write something like "please keep WP:3RR in mind at Article Name" on their talk page, assuming they have seen it in the past and forgot about it for a moment. The more experienced someone is, however, the less likely is that informing them about the existence of policy pages is actually telling them anything new. Taking the live example from above, I am aware of the consensus policy, the dispute resolution policy and the administrator policy. Their existence is no surprise; a general request to read them entirely is absurd and obviously won't be followed. Similarly, most of the policy and/or guideline sections you quote don't actually tell the reader anything new. If someone has been uncivil, this can of course be addressed – a simple "wow, I didn't mean to upset you; can we focus on the content at Talk:Example?" without pointing to any policy or even mentioning the word "civility" does much larger wonders than "You've been uncivil in violation of policy X and here's a quote you should long be aware of, and if you reply in disagreement you get another policy quote you have already seen many times and are long aware of". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I quote verbatim many times is because precisely my years of experience in Wikipedia. I can see that you have been around only since 2012. Maybe you have more edits but in any case I am basically the grandmother here. I was editing anonymously before registering since Wikipedia was founded in 2000. I even remember the ads for Nupedia, Wikipedia's predecessor. Therefore, using your own logic about experience, maybe you should actually listen to what grandma has to say instead of trying to impose your own views.

Sometimes when I briefly stated guidance in the form of "please keep WP:xpolicy in mind at Article Name", I found that editors misinterpreted what I say because oftentimes policies are at least several sentences long and other times are even pages long. Then they would think I was referring to a sentence of the policy other than the one I had in mind in the first place. This then brought discussions based on an editor having in mind one sentence of the policy and I having in mind another sentence. Also, if I stated the matter as briefly all the time (which sometimes I do because I understand sometimes it is more useful), there were discussions where the other editor also misinterpreted what I was saying because of the brief sentence instead of a proper length rationale.

Therefore, with time, I came to the conclusion that although sometimes stating things in a snippet is proper and fine (many times I only make a brief edit summary without any other lengthy explanation), other times it is better to have a more lengthy explanation of one's rationale, including relevant verbatim quotes. I find this to be a more productive and less confusing way to have discussions. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is a pretty specific policy section and an abbreviation of "three revert rule",* so the 3RR example does work. I agree that this can't be generalized to include any policy link and that just pointing to a big policy page (or even just a large section) may lead to confusion. What I was trying to demonstrate is an approach that doesn't assume the recipient needs to be educated about the policy content or (worse) its entire existence, while still getting the point across and having something to refer to as a given warning in case it's ignored.

But what happened at [20] two days ago, for example, doesn't really seem to be justifiable by productivity or avoiding confusing the recipient. Your approach there, for example, was patronizing from a non-existent position above Acroterion's. That's doubly weird. Raising concerns the way done there is almost a civility issue by itself. I say "almost" because you may be tempted to quote policy sections to disprove this statement and I'm not interested in discussing endlessly about whether it was a civility issue or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Of course you know this; my point is that in this specific case, the rule is already in its name, and it's already explained by three words. I'd say that's the reason why the example works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMINABUSE. Thinker78 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treating "I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping" as "admin abuse" and making a huge issue out of it, informing the administrator that ArbCom is part of WP:DR and, now that the request has been declined by ArbCom, apparently still insisting that you chose the right venue for your request is a pretty good example of not getting the point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} Having been mysteriously named in the case request (with no clarification given when asked), I tend to agree that Thinker78 is just wasting time, and seems to have a poor understanding of the WP:PAGs. This coupled with an apparently outsized belief in their own righteousness and infalibility is just a time suck. And this is another thread that exemplifies that. Bon courage (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage The reason I named you is because you were one of the parties I had a dispute with if you didn't notice. I considered it proper to include you in the case because you were part of the case even if I didn't make accusations against you. Maybe I should have. Thinker78 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have any 'dispute' with me, and in any event the case request was not about a 'dispute' but (good grief) "Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals." I merely reverted some disruptive content that for some reason you had restored. That doesn't rise to the level of a "dispute" with me (and if you think so, it just reinforces you just don't get it). Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can read the Chemtrails thread above and the reverts I made, which constitute a dispute. Have a good day. Thinker78 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more than I'm "in dispute" with a vandal I revert. You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehenson that there was any justification for your (twice) reverting the "chemtrails are racist" comment. You were merely disrupting the encyclopedia. Like a vandal. Bon courage (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good day. Thinker78 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very uncharitable reading of HN's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+99999.914 to what Thinker78 said. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z80Spectrum, thanks for putting oil into the fire and encouraging disruptive behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 from me too. I am very likely to support a sanction if this gets brought to ANI. The conduct I would love to see you change before that happens:

1. The issue TBF notes above
2. Restoring talk page comments that violate WP:TPG
3. Unnecessary use of valuable community time, for instance by posting notices at policy/guideline talk pages.

I'm happy to explain more about why I find all those things disruptive, since I really do hope you'll change your approach before a sanction discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers posting notices at policy/guideline talk pages. Are you saying editors should not post notices at policy/guidelines talk pages to publicize discussions? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't phrase it quite so simplistically. I'll have a fuller answer for you soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support notices at PAG talk pages for at least two reasons:

• the other discussion involves consideration of a change to the policy or guideline
• the other discussion features some explicit disagreement about interpretation of the policy or guideline that might be sufficiently interesting to talk page followers.

It's important that such notices be relatively rare, since the main purpose of the talk page is to facilitate improvements to the policy/guideline page. In my experience, your posts at such talk pages are common and unhelpful.

Just looking at your posts at WT:CONSENSUS, both this May 2023 post and this one from a few days ago are disruptive. Disagreements about whether or not there's consensus for a specific action or edit are ubiquitous on Wikipedia, and it would make no sense for WT:CONSENSUS to be spammed with notices to every such discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would advise to modify the policies and guidelines that state it is acceptable to post notices in relevant talk pages, because they don't post the restriction you interpret. Which actually led to this unnecessary brouhaha because I based my posting such notices in said guidance. But I guess that is irrelevant because it appears editors can be blocked just because admins feel like it. Thinker78 (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only active editor I'm aware of who commonly is disruptive in this way, so I wouldn't seek any change to policy; also, I don't think any policy/guideline suggests such actions, and I think you've misconstrued things like WP:MULTI and WP:SEEKHELP. That's probably it for me here. I didn't want to support a block against you without first explaining what it is I hope you'll change, out of gratitude for the many quality edits you've made. I hope there's some inner voice that's whispering that maybe you've been wrong and should accept some advice. If there is, I urge you to listen. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thinker78 - It is good (or at least not bad) for you that this long non-dialogue is on your talk page and not on a project page. What Z80Spectrum was blocked for is similar, carrying on at length about your own rightness. As I said about them, insisting that you are the judge of rightness may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative editing. As I said to Z80Spectrum, the guideline about talk page removal should be revised, but it appears that you were given advance notice that restoring troll posts by unregistered editors was disruptive. You may be a thinker, but telling an admin to read a policy again illustrates that you weren't thinking when you made that post. What you need to read is not a policy but an article, First law of holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the above discussion, you are banned from editing and I have indefinitely blocked your account. This is a community ban which you can appeal at any time by following the instructions at WP:UNBAN; you still have access to your talk page. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Hello Thinker78, at the bottom of WP:Administrative action review's current revision, I referred to the "section above", which is yours. It hasn't been archived yet and a case that is similar in my opinion arised, so I mentioned it.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's firsts has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women attorneys general has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women chief justices has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women governors has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women mayors has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women government ministers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women presidents has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women legislative speakers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Векочел (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]