User talk:Cessaune

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

---

Talk:Mountain Fountain/GA1

Cessaune, it has been over two months since you opened this review page, but have yet to post your review. As far as I can, both you and the nominator are active. If you intend to conduct the review, please do so soon; otherwise, perhaps you could G6 the page so the article can be placed back into the pool of unreviewed nominations. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I kinda forgot about this. Thanks for the reminder. Cessaune [talk] 03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for your attention to this article, it's appreciated. --Muchness (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Cessaune, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a test to see if you get that red notification! Merry 01-11! Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump & Abraham Accords RfC close

Greeings, Cessaune, and apologies for not responding to the question you posed to me in the talk page of editor Vanderwaalforces, a section now archived. So, my belated response is that "the arguments presented by Oppose !voters are invalid" but that they're insufficient to overcome what is a very clear case of a notable event deserving a place in a person's biography. And I find the term "deserving" to be rather weak in this case. I did not expect a closure by a non-admin, to be honest. (If I weren't preoccupied with personal issues and absent from Wikipedia, I'd have proposed that the RfC be closed by two admins.) I was under the evidently naive assumption that the seriousness and the gravitas of the RfC's subject would have been respected by the community but Vanderwaalforces found it in themselves to go ahead and close the RfC, justifying the decision in favor of Oppose on arbitrary, personal arguments, invoking policy in generic terms. As I already said, this has been a very sad and disappointing turn of affairs for me. Political preferences may have played a part in the RfC itself or its closure; I do not know. In any case, all in all, a very bad decision. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue wasn't that it was closed by a non-admin. The real issue was that the non-admin who closed it didn't close it well. Non-admins close RfCs all the time, and if they didn't we'd need more admins. Admins can't do everything themselves.

Two admins? The last time I saw a two-admin close, it was WP:V22RFC2. The community doesn't have time for that. And, ultimately, it isn't that serious. The sentence itself isn't even a controversial sentence, not like this.

As to the outcome, if it was as clear as you think it was the !votes would've been 18-4. As it stands, the issue's obviously not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be. What I want to understand is if you actually understand what Oppose voters are arguing about, because I sense that you only kinda do. Cessaune [talk] 16:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The proposal for administrators to close a discussion is neither new nor exceptional. Have a look at the Closure Requests archives and you'll see this being requested when the issue involved proves complex and/or controversial, which is what the RfC abt the Abraham Accords in Trump's BLP was, quite evidently. And, yes, it was, not unexpectedly, an extremely erroneous closure. The reason was not the numerical comparison of suggestions but the quality of them. Almost every single "No" suggestion ignored or even denied the two vital criteria, i.e. the Accords were/are notable and they did happen during Trump's presidency, with America's role in getting them signed acknowledged by all concerned. How this can be translated in some minds as "Trump did not have anything to do with the Accords" is beyond me. And that's what the Oppose ~!votes were about. I got nothing else to say. I'm currently still working in Wikipedia but also reviewing if it's worthy and deserves my time any more. -The Gnome (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Gnome, notability is the test for a standalone page. The test for inclusion on other pages is WP:WEIGHT, which is entirely different. You also don't seem to distinguish between US role in creating the accord vs. US hosting a ceremony. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to forget or still choose to ignore that, in that wretched RfC, one main argument of the Opposers was that the Accords was not an important, i.e. notable, development in the Middle East. An argument which, of course, the sources I (and others) presented devastatingly refuted. These sources were: The governments of the United States, Israel, and the Arab signatories; most notable think tanks in Europe, Asia, Stateside, and elsewhere; and the world's media.

Some Opposers even descended as low as to argue that we should not include the Accords because events in the region following the Accords proved that the Accords did not help the peace. One does not know whether to laugh at such personal positions used as arguments or sigh at the level of discussion therein. They tacitly accept that the Accords were notable but then argue they actually are not since they failed. Munich Accords anyone?

As to the US role in helping the process of the agreement through (the term "creating" is inaccurate, if not disingenuous), that too is conclusively supported by a myriad of sources. I submitted a large sample of these sources too.

It's not a lightly taken position, mine. I consider that closing one of the worst, if not the worst, closings of an AfD or RfC discussion to which I've been privy in all my years in Wikipedia. The words used by a few Opposers about Trump and his presidency are very revealing about the deeper nature of their stance. An extremely pitiful episode. -The Gnome (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I included in this group? I hope not. Cessaune [talk] 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to "VOTE" support please do so. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I !voted already. Cessaune [talk] 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my three, barring self-reverts. Stop unilaterally moving my comments. They are where they are for a reason. Cessaune [talk] 17:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, respectfully, why are my comments being moved, but not the comments of others that are placed in the survey sections? Cessaune [talk] 17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In my case because yours were moved, and you then reverted it. But it maybe because other "comments" are more of a "I am unsure how to vote" kind. also being right is not a justification for edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Very sorry. I didn't mean to do that, I never mean to do that, and I'm just a little annoyed about this whole thing. I'll try to be better in the future.

Here are some of the comments that are placed in the survey section.

While I am not supporting or opposing the proposal, I will explain why I justify this wording to be most modest proposal and the most likely of any proposal to succeed. The proposal uses language directly from the Abraham Accords article, and does not credit Donald Trump with any active role (such as "brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was foreign relations being normalised, as opposed to economic or other relations. If editors believe that there should be even more content about the Accords in the article, they should support the proposal, and if they believe that there should be no content about it at all, they should oppose it.

There is an erroneous argument in some of the suggestions here, to the effect that the Accords have failed to deliver what they promised and, therefore, they're not important enough and do not deserve a mention in Trump's biography. That is false, as false as arguing that, since they too failed, the Munich Accords do not deserve an article in Wikipedia. There might also be in play some kind of erroneous view of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their personal dislike of Trump and abhorrence for his actions as president. I truly hope so!

(sigh) We are not here to debate the consequences, the outcome, or the developments following the Abraham Accords. We are not here either to discuss the notability of the Abraham Accords! That ship has sailed. A myriad of sources from across the planet testify in the affirmative. All we are here to discuss in this RfC is whether or not the suggested sentence merits a place in the Trump bio, section foreign policy, subsection Israel. That is all. It is quite sad to see people still arguing about the agreement's trivially established notability and denouncing it as a "media event." (As if there was ever in the modern era a significant agreement between nations that was not a "media event"!) If this had not happened during Trump's watch, with American mediation still "crucial" per the words of the signatories, I submit that no debate would be necessary, much less an RfC. So, can we please, pretty please, with sugar on top, get back to serious work?

Cessaune [talk] 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

TBH - in all RFCs, we should all refrain from commenting on or responding to other editors' "survey" posts, in the "Survey sub-section". Best to place such comments/responses in the "Discussion sub-section". Unfortunately, many editors don't do this. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That may be honest, but it is incorrect. A short comment directly associated with the predicate is much easier for everyone to follow than the same comment buried in a standalone position with no connection to the rest of a bloated "discussion" section. Sometimes a direct reply is best. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you drop it now, before you are sanctioned, the RFC is bad enough without having to discuss your (or other user's) conduct). Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have stopped commiting any sanctionable actions. Cessaune [talk] 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:REHASH and WP:LISTEN. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Closing WP:GAN reviews

You'll want to put the {{GA}} template on the talk page of the article, not on the review page. In this case, that would be Talk:Comets in fiction (and you would then also remove the {{GA nominee}} template). The |page= parameter should be set to 2 (because the review is Talk:Comets in fiction/GA2) and the |oldid= parameter should be set to 1204335213 (the most recent revision of the reviewed article Comets in fiction: Special:PermaLink/1204335213). TompaDompa (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have, for the record, listed Comets in fiction at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature#Genres and literary theory. TompaDompa (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh? I thought I did so already... Man. I'm really struggling. Sorry once again! Cessaune [talk] 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No harm done. It needs to be added manually to the precise spot in the list one wants it (there is no automatic alphabetization or similar). TompaDompa (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)