This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chicdat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Per consensus at the administrator's noticeboard (permanent link), the following topic ban has been enacted:
Chicdat is topic-banned from editing pages within projectspace ("Wikipedia:"). He is still able to edit the talkpages of these pages to make any requests and engage in discussions. Chicdat is additionally prohibited from editing redirects to pages in the project space, for the same period. These restrictions are appealable at WP:ANI no sooner than 6 months."
@Daniel: I'm asking for clarification about the ban here. Some users believe that "projectspace" includes pages in other namespaces as well (i.e. Help: Template: File:); am I allowed to edit those pages? 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!12:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
My reading of your restriction is that it only restricts you from "Wikipedia:"-space. Which users believe this, and where is the on-wiki discussion about it? Daniel (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Levivich said in their comment: the important thing is that it should be a tban from projectspace (not just WP: but also templates, files, etc.) and not a pblock from just the Wikipedia namespace (I don't think they should be in WT: pages either). Thank you for the clarification. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!12:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel: Am I allowed to request that an edit be made on my behalf on the talk page of a projectspace page, and if so, which template should I use? 🐔dat (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I looked at your ban appeal, but it seems like that you aren't very ready to get involved back at Wikipedia: space. Sorry to disappoint you, but you need to get more mature for a task like that. I want to also remind that you are targeted by some user in an arbitration case in regards to the topic ban discussion, which made me considering to appeal your topic ban. Unfortunately however, as tainted it was, the issue that led to your topic ban isn't resolved to this day. You need to be more patient, maybe next year or so. My best suggestion is that you should damp your enthusiasm and take more time away from Wikipedia, since Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: space appears to draw your attention the most. It took me a long time to get myself into what it is now, and I believe you can do it eventually. As long as you don't push yourself too much. MarioJump83!12:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I would be willing to mentor Chicdat in editing and improving articles, if the user accepts, to foster good will in the community. That could go a long way to making sure the user understands that the point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not primarily to make friends or to talk about improving the encyclopedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree. I won't be able to mentor Chicdat at this point in time, and I failed as a mentor. My only call is to keep my watch. MarioJump83!06:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@MarioJump83: I wouldn't say that you failed as a mentor, but that you stepped up to the plate when it was needed. However, there were certain things that you couldn't help Chicdat as they are the skills that come with age. I personally think that @Hurricanehink:'s proposal is interesting but wonder if they aren't trying to cut off more than he can chew.Jason Rees (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
You may not want to hear this, but I think it's important for you to hear if you're going to have a successful unblock - You're misunderstanding the reason people opposed. People didn't oppose your unblock because of your comments at WT:CSD specifically, they opposed because of what they represented. The edits at WT:CSD were the symptom, not the disease, as they say. You need to address the reasons why you made those comments in the first place.
There are some fundamental issues with your approach to "behind the scenes" editing that you need to work on, again this might not be pleasant to read. By far your biggest issue is that you lack the self-awareness to recognise when you are completely out of your depth and don't understand what is going on. Rather than standing back and saying "I don't know about X, I'll let someone who does know comment" you jump in and comment anyway, which results in discussions ending up being "explain stuff to Chicdat" rather than "address the issue being discussed". Combined with your habit of being impulsive and just doing things without thinking them through fully this resulted in a massive time sink in project space.
Another thing that you need to work on is your ability to loose a debate gracefully and step away from a discussion. When something doesn't go your way you need to accept it and move on, rather than continuing to try and get your way. This is exacerbated by you not really being able to read consensus properly.
These shouldn't be seen as flaws of personality on your part, the issues here are driven by lack of experience and consequently a lack of maturity, they will resolve themselves with time.
There are things that you can work on right now, however. One thing that has repeatedly reared its head as an issue is the gaps in your knowledge of policy and process. Read policies, make sure you understand all the intricacies and exceptions and then apply them in discussions.
If I was in your position what I would do is pick one "behind the scenes" activity that you can do without access to wikipedia space and focus on getting really good at it. Learn the policies and show that you understand them in detail. Have several months of high-quality problem free contributions in that specific area. Get involved in discussions about it; show us that you understand when your thoughts are useful and when they are not, show us that you can write comments grounded in research, policy and well thought out suggestions, rather than just the first thing that you think of. With that evidence I would then go to AN and write an appeal asking for the block to be lifted from a few associated pages. If you can demonstrate changed behaviour on those pages then go back with that evidence and ask for more sections to be lifted, etc etc etc. Trying to get the whole thing lifted in one go is a monumental task. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I fully agree with everything you say, IP. The ban was the only solution to my behavioral issues. Otherwise, as I said in my appeal, I would have likely been indeffed before Thanksgiving. But instead of taking time out to review policies, I thought, "Oh, participation in a backstage area will help me appeal my ban." and I jumped into CSD, with zero knowledge of how often proposals there passed. And with every unhelpful comment I made there, the chances of a successful appeal decreased more and more.
So in January, very stupidly, I thought, "I'm going to edit in an area that requires very little communication (Lint) so I can 'keep my nose clean' until May." What I didn't notice was "2000 lint fixes won't help me very much in my appeal." And no, they did not. Despite my efforts, absolutely nobody thought the ban should be removed. Exactly the type of unanimously-against-me behavior I've found too much on Wikipedia.
So that's why I've accepted Hurricanehink's mentorship below. Maybe that'll make me, at last, competent enough to edit in Wikipedia: space. And maybe in my next appeal, I'll have something other than opposes. 🇺🇦ChicdatBawk to me!10:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Chicdat. Earlier today, you removed Ada Thompson from List of the oldest living people stating that the ESO is not a reliable source, but you did not state a reason for this source's unreliability. Can you cite the specific Wikipedia policy that deems this source unreliable? Just want to make sure we're on the same page here. Thanks. Softmist (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Chicdat, I noticed that you removed an ESO cited entry which was added by Softmist.
You stated that ESO was not considered a reliable source.
Softmist also added LAS cited entries at the same time (www.supercentenarios.net).
The entries were Eusebio Quintero López and Susana Gutiérrez Godoy.
Does LAS fall in the same category as ESO or is it considered reliable.
Thanks, Ralph Rklingmann (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear project member,
This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.
We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. NoahTalk02:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sorry I dropped off the face of Wikipedia this summer. Other projects came up, and I had to focus my time elsewhere. Are you still editing these days? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Please don't repeat that edit. That's not an error, and you're introducing a tracking error. (If the color code param is not filled with a color code, the template generates a tracking error. 'Unknown' is not a color code; 'unclassified' is.) — kwami (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kwamikagami: Actually, it is an error, see WP:LINT. Restoring the "unclassified" parameter (somehow) is read as a <ul> tag without another closing tag by Linter, which creates a log entry that somebody will one day see and fix. Maybe you know a way to remove the Lint error without also removing the color code? 🇺🇦ChicdatBawk to me!12:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea. The error appears to be in the LINT syntax, so that's what presumably needs to be fixed. These tracking codes have been used for over a decade without a problem. — kwami (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, it's been some time. It seems to me that you have gone a long way to become a much improved contributor to Wikipedia, which is great. As much as it is though, it appears sometimes that you got some complaints with your edits - which may dash your hopes at getting that TBAN lifted.
Personally though, I want to apologize for my behavior towards you back in early 2021 when getting you into my mentorship. I didn't think clearly of myself at that time as I was really stressed with family matters at large, which eventually led into my semi-retirement in June 2021. Not just that, I may have failed you from getting out of eventual TBAN. But at the very least now you can point out errors on every article you find with my help.
Despite all of this, I am looking forward towards your TBAN being lifted and hopefully get the understanding how Wikipedia: space works. As it stands though, you have gone out of trouble for most of this year. If you keep this going, maybe some day I'll make a case for you getting that TBAN removed. But for now, have a great time! MarioJump83 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi MarioJump83. I really don't think I've been in any serious trouble over the past year, but I haven't really done much the past year either. Either way, thanks for coming to my talk page. One question, though: what are the complaints with my edits you're referring to? 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!12:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you have an alternate account. I want to remind you that you could use Template:Alternate account and redirect the talkpage of that account to yours in here. Please be warned that you shouldn't do any sockpuppetry stuff with that account, Destroyeraa got blocked two years ago for not disclosing and did not use their alternative account properly. Now they use Destroyeraa-alt for most of their activity, but they did use the account in proper way. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I've added the template and redirected the talk page. Thank you for telling me about this; I don't want to be accused of sockpuppetry. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I have set up an userbox relating to that alternative account on your userpage. By the way. In regards to your alternative account's pagemove of Louis I of Spain, you should have asked FOR consensus first before moving in the talk page of that article - it appears that most of your problems in the first place have been caused by that, mostly due to misunderstanding and preferring to make premature actions like this. This is why I see your plan to get topic unbanned now is risky. Good decision to not seek unbanning first, as you need to get firm support from everybody especially people who get actively involved in WP:ANI. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that my "jumping-right-in" hasn't completely stopped. Perhaps you could start mentoring me again, so [I] have the Elephant to see the difference between WP:BOLD and reckless wishful thinking? Anyway, if I tried to appeal right now, Louis and the message from March would sink me for sure, so over the next few months I'm planning to ask a lot of the people who appeared in the ban discussion and the appeal (Cabayi, whom I quoted above, and Hink chief among them). Until then, how do you think I should edit? Should I stay semi-inactive, or bring my speed up to editing daily again? And are there any particular areas you'd wish me to work in (e.g. WT:Weather) to prepare me for the appeal? 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!14:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In regards about mentoring so you could be able to make a difference between BOLD and reckless editing, I don't think you should get any mentoring from me this way and better search anyone who could. I could not spend my time with you on this website as you would have liked because there's real-life matters to go on.
Regarding editing, as I have said before, being semi-active is the best way to avoid many problems you have. Being too active can make you end up like CommanderWaterford, and my activity in early 2021 eventually caught up with me as well. And about where you would like to work on in Wikipedia, I would like you to read and understand most of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding consensus and consensusmaking in particular. Sorry for my use of harsh words but the most reckless actions you have made seems to come from misunderstanding of consensusmaking. That being said, you could actively hone these skills on WT:Weather and/or being an active participant on Talk:List of the verified oldest people, in which the article you seem to be actively editing on. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Holy cow I just stumbled onto your sandbox, incredible progress you’ve made! I can’t believe you only have 1995 to present to finish the list. Great work so far. I’m sure it’s felt like an endless project - I’ve done a few of those. But once you’re done, it’s amazing to enjoy the feeling of being done, having compiled something so massive, and honestly something so useful. I don’t know if there’s any other lists anywhere that has every Atlantic TS, but thanks to you, that will be a reality on Wikipedia in the near future. Keep it up! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey there Chicdat. I was just thinking about the list of Atlantic tropical storms (I was actually talking about it). I know you've been working on it for a long time. The article is probably done enough to publish it, if you'd like. I just wanted to check if you wanted me to wait, of if that was OK. Publishing it would mean that maybe other people could finish the article, especially since it would be in the mainspace, and linked to all of the other categories (like Category 5). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry Hink, but once I get a handle on my schedule IRL, I will finish it myself. So I'd actually prefer for it to stay there for the time being. If I change my mind (which is likely especially for some of the sub-columns) then I'm open to the idea. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.
There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather by year until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hey Chicdat, I wondered if you minded if I published your sandbox? I know it's incomplete, but I think it's remarkable how much you've done. And considering there's still a need for the List of Atlantic tropical storms, I figured that it's more likely to get done if we publish it. Would that be OK? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, you can publish it. I can't see myself working on it that much in the foreseeable future, so the more people work on it, the better. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
