User talk:Slomo666

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2025 Moldovan parliamentary election regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic 2025 Moldovan parliamentary election.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Basque mapping (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a deadline for me to add my comments? I think my position should be clear from what I’ve said in the talk page already, but if it helps I am quite willing to make a submission on the noticeboard. Slomo666 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to make a short summary of your position on the noticeboard so that responders don't have to click through to read an entire discussion. There's no deadline to make comments, nor are you compelled to make any at all. It comes down to how much influence you wish to have on any resolution. Xan747 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC) (Uninvolved editor)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—FYI several of the users you've tagged there are due for sanctions in the next few days and thus not likely to be in a place to respond to this ping. What you appear to be attempting here is to reinvent the format we on wikipedia call an "RFC". I strongly suggest not making your first RFC one in this topic space, though. For the simple reason that, as demonstrated in the first sentence, it's really easy to get in trouble in a contentious topic area and the number 1 demand for editing there is already knowing Wikipedia's policy, something you don't appear to have fully familiarized yourself with yet, based on that attempted RFC. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Slomo explicitly mentions prior RfCs in their opening post, it's safe to say they're aware of that process. And as another editor mentioned in response, this seems to be a good pre-RFC discussion to solicit opinions of other editors before making an RfC. Reading the comments from the edit request that sparked this, it does seem the consensus has drifted from the previous RfC. As it's been two years it should be appropriate to raise the question of whether consensus has truly changed. Slomo, that all said, Licks-rocks makes a good point that you may want to try your mediating and organizing skills out on less contentious subjects first. WP:3O is always looking for good help, and not every issue there is as volatile as this one. Plus, 3Os can only be called for disputes between two editors, which significantly reduces the number of cats to herd. Xan747 (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I responded to Licks Rocks (wonderful name btw, I am curious how they came up with it) on their talk page already that I do agree I might be a bit out of my depth. (Although this is far from my first time mediating... Just the first time on Wikipedia. I got that bureaucratic process brain from prior ~~trauma~~ experience (Have you ever heard the phrase "voting about voting"? Well, I've encountered real-life situations of voting-about-voting-about-voting about a subject (and worse). Although I was lucky I did not have to lead those debates.)

Ironically, by the way, I may soon find myself at 3O anyways, as a result of a discussion somewhat adjacent to this contentious topic (And it may very well still become volatile, so don't assume it being two editors preempts that haha) Slomo666 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it put exactly that way, but those sorts of meta-conversations happen all the time here, just as they often do in real life. What is gerrymandering if not a struggle between factions to decide how to frame the battleground to their best advantage? The thing about mediation though is that people have to want it before it will be accepted. That's why 3O is nice; at least one party there is inviting outside opinion. Trying to do it in a conversation in which you're already involved is more difficult, and may or may not be received as well as simply barging into talk page and laying down ground rules. It's also not unusual to get reactions such as, wait you're a little new here. I'm almost 25 times my Wikipedia age, with the scars to prove it and developed skills to avoid getting as many more. What you did here was fine; you identified concerns in a systematic way and sat back to let others respond. Only thing I might have done differently is not laid out behavior ground rules. We all know them even when we fail to abide them. And I typically find it's just best to not comment on misbehaving editors and focus on whatever actual arguments they make. That keeps things from becoming about the meta-process. Xan747 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I was getting into a decent mood again, you had to mention gerrymandering. Grrrrrr. (/s)

I won't reveal my age, (and you shouldn't have hinted at this either tbh) I laid out the behaviour ground rules as a means to kind of control the debate because, when I was drafting it (in bed as a note on my phone about to go to sleep) the discussion was spiralling out of control and I wanted to basically remind people and give some steady ground to reset the discussion.

I made, when I wrote it, actually a note that could have been interpreted as not fully assuming good faith or as singling out an editor. I removed it, despite thinking it (c-/)would have been useful to relate to other editors that this behaviour I was providing an example of, could be an attempt at prejudice and that it would be harmful to the discussion to repeat or escalate this. I removed it for exactly the reason you mention, so you reinforce my thoughts this morning.

A side-note though: an issue playing yestereve (kind of still continuing, what a drag) was actually that editors were (help how do I say this in english "elkaar de maat nemen" Trying to size each other up?) basically doing this commentary (and it was almost getting somewhat personal) already.

I still support my decision to write the start of the discussion the way I did though. I still hope commenting on policy and suggesting some groundrules will help and do so in a way that does not offend, but will hopefully inspire people to take a breath when they feel tensed instead and to reflect on their new comments before they post. Slomo666 (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate makes that "take each other's measure" which is how we might have said "size each other up" a hundred years ago, which pleases me, but you have it correctly for modern English. My favorite Dutch idiom has to be "elkaar de maat nemen", which is apropos here: cats will be cats no matter what boundaries you set. But you do you, and good luck. See you around. Xan747 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make that "de kat aan het spek binden". I copied the wrong words. Xan747 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Google is translating it correctly tbh. To "de maat nemen" someone, means basically accusing someone of stuff, (hyper-)criticising them. If two people do it to each other, it means they are trying to cut/tear each other down. (A common version is accusations of hypocrisy. Another beautiful dutch word I've yet to find in English, meaning hypocrisy: schijnheilig(heid) (schijn as in: faux/(false)appearance of, "heilig" as in holiness, like in holier-than-thou) It's not constructive behaviour anyways.

I interpret "sizing someone up" as trying to guesstimate someone's strengths, weaknesses, behaviours etc, and not as petty criticism.

Your consistent cat allegory amuses me, because in my experience, cats are unherdable. Dogs can be done.

As a side note on account age, I recently got a notification for my 1000th edit.

As a second side note: I saw you had a cite-formatter on your user page, which you commented on as something you recently discovered, which was funny to me because (crying...) I have been exposed (not willingly) to so many of those in my much-longer-than-my-Wikipedia-life academic life. (as another sidenote: many of these are free btw, and some have marvellous integration in Word that I refuse to use because I don't like relying on their proprietary techology) I also note that Wikipedia has a (kind of shitty in comparison to the very customisable (multiple citation styles, including numbered) option of Mendeley for instance, (which like the visual editor allows reuse of citations) but I still use it because it is so easily/conveniently integrated) cite-formatter already in the visual editor.

Third (??) side note: it is "kat op het spek binden" (you tie the cat on the bacon, not to it.)

Slomo666 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only remember the English, not the Dutch, and its meaning: tempting someone beyond their capacity to resist. There is a funny graphic floating around I saw recently that all Wikipedians are cats, which accounts for many of our troubles here--one of which is editors picking fights on talk pages and then trying to referee the ensuing fight. Not saying you did that, just observing it happens. Your interpretation of "sizing someone up" is correct. Congrats on your 1,000 edits, that's double from where I met you! Xan747 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, you don't mean to say "sizing someone up". How about: calling each other out. Xan747 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought of that, and in terms of the actions that is similar to the described behaviour, but "de maat nemen" always has a negative connotation and that is what I meant. It means you're trying to take someone down a peg. (I can keep going with these idioms forever, I think) Slomo666 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can wander on about words forever too. Enjoyable chat. I have a chart to make for a dispute that I'm in, so farewell for now. Xan747 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Slomo666. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Federica Di Palma

Edit requests don't normally need to be the entire text of the article in the first place, and should really just be specific "change X to Y", so I'm not sure why the entire text of the article even needs to be on the talk page in the first place. I mean, do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't put the talk page back into article categories, but I'm not so clear on why the entire article needed to be copy-pasted there in the first place let alone why the categories would need to be present alongside them. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not my edit request! It’s someone else who has a COI. I just noticed your edit because I had tried to help them clean up a bit. If it had been me, I would have probably made it in a sandbox, but they already wrote their request so I just unified it and added a reflist template. Slomo666 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dead Internet theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About SPIs from temp users and edit requests regarding them

Hi! I saw you were a bit confused about the edit request that was left on an SPI post from a temporary user, so I thought you might like an explanation.

Because anonymous (now temporary) users are unable to directly create a page in the Wikipedia namespace, the SPI creation process will instead create the request on the Wikipedia talk namespace with an {{edit semi-protected}} template attached, so that someone else with permission can move it to the correct namespace. Usually if I see these, I leave them for a page mover to handle (as they can move the page without creating a redirect), but there's technically nothing stopping you from handling these. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I thought. I would think it's more useful to use a move request than the semi-protected request template. (you see it was answered twice by another editor before I realised the mistake we were both making) I did not want to leave it on the list of unanswered requests, as someone else might make the same mistake I did. Thanks for helping. I was not sure if I should or should nor leave the redirect. Slomo666 (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Either way, the redirect that is created can be G6'd as uncontroversial cleanup, which I've already requested. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

It's been over a month since you had your EC pulled, and at the time, you were told you could ask for it back after making 500 more edits. You have made over 1000 more edits, and most of them seem substantial enough to count. Therefore, if you want to, you could ask an admin (such as Doug Weller above) to return your extended confirmed privileges. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully confident yet of the volume of my qualitative edits. A large number of my edits is in the Talk namespace and I have no intention to be questioned over this again (as I was earlier as you can see on this page). My mental health suffered enough from the drama leading up to that and following it.

I do not share the position of the person who requested my EC be pulled, especially since [redacted, irrelevant]. (I do regret not just leaving things be, but I truly believed I was doing it correctly. A mistake I made far too many times.)

I have a page dedicated to tracking my own edits to ensure I only request it once my request is of a degree where it cannot be called into question by (bad faith or otherwise) actors.

I intend to request priviliges before or on the two month mark (anniversary isn't really the word) of them being pulled.

I am not sure I want to bother Doug again. I feel rather embarassed towards him, and honestly sorry that he had to put up with so much of my shit/drama.

I don't mind, but why did you message me? You were not involved with my case, were you? (Or actually: how did you even get to my (talk) page?)

Slomo666 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Michael Jackson. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been made painfully aware of this, through my experience responding to that RfC. (also there is literally a notice on that talk page which I think I pointed out during the discussion.) Slomo666 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Congratulations, gefeliciteerd! I just saw you responding to a EC-edit request. You worked hard to get this far. Lova Falk (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha stroopwafels on my English talk page. Slomo666 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sandra wojtowicz

06011998@Slomo666 ~2025-42734-10 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]