Hi! I noticed that you previously expressed an interest in seeing February 2013 nor'easter renamed to Winter Storm Nemo. You might be interested to know that there is currently an official vote regarding a move at the article's talk page. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
You may be interested in joining this project; it's only just starting up, but will become more active as we move into trustee election season. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was not aware of the limit. I like that word, which I found appropriate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's part of discovery in trials, to clarify stuff before a trial. And the limits are there to keep dudes like the editor in question from bludgeoning their adversaries with a massive coatrack! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, thank you for your advice of communicating with the editor more softly, which I'll try to follow.
However here we are again at the situation Talk:25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes#Russian claims, where the editor is rejecting the context of the Russian claims given by the RSs and is advocating to either leave those claims as is ("That may indeed be what the sources you used say. But that doesn't guarantee inclusion, nor balance, nor due weight"), or to add own context. Which is, in my opinion, is against WP:RS, which tells us specifically to use secondary sources, and giving context to facts is what distinguishes secondary sources from primary, and the context we should add should be not ours, but RSs. Maybe you can advice on how to communicate that, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not in expert in all the sources in this area, so I'm probably not the best one to reach out to. But if you're having issues with Alexis or another editor, I'd recommend stepping out, getting a cup of tea or whatever relieves stress, and if you still want to do some editing, look around on a fun or silly topic. Yes, getting these things right is important, but when you battle too long, it starts to get built into your mindset, and we're all better off when we avoid that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, regarding the topicban, while I don't accept using tg and Russian state-controlled media as sources, the editor is quite active in the area and can produce productive contribution if those false balance edits could be taken care of. Maybe a limit to reverts until the consensus is reached on a talk page could serve the purpose and satisfy those who want to preserve productive contributions, instead of a TB? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my feeling as well, but the continued use of Telegram is really a deal-breaker for me. Productive or not, these Telegram inclusions are raising the temperature of a part of Wikipedia that is boiling over and does a disservice to readers. I don't think there's consensus for a topic ban though; admins seem to be nope-ing out of jumping into that one one way or the other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
