User talk:TheRazgriz

Notice

Be advised: WP:PAG still apply while on user's Talk pages. Do keep in mind that while there is a greater "freedom" of flexibility with regard to certain elements of userpages, per WP:USERPAGE, no portion of Wikipedia is a "social media site" in the same way as Facebook, X, or others.

This page is NOT the "Direct Message (DM)" space for the user "TheRazgriz". The content that is left here will NOT only be seen by yourself and the user, but may be seen by others, including WP:ADMIN. As such, derogatory, slanderous, or otherwise offensive topics, statements, replies, etc. can and WILL be removed, and further actions may be taken if appropriate.

Content removed from this page does NOT assert or verify that such content has violated WP:PAG or that such content was otherwise offensive or disruptive, as most content removed from users talk pages are done via rather mundane or routine "cleaning" of the pages for a number of reasons. Content which HAS been removed for an assertion or allegation for WP:PAG WILL be either moved to a dedicated archive pending future action, or used in the near future by either TheRazgriz or a WP:ADMIN as evidence in an appropriate escalation process. It is advised that users remember that nuance of human communication is often lost over simple text. Something humorous can appear to be offensive, a bit of light-hearted wit can come off as passive-aggressive snark, etc.

This notice is NOT to discourage participation on this page. This notice IS to ensure that editors ask the question "Will this comment/topic/reply HELP or HARM the goal of community collaboration, either in part or in whole?" prior to clicking the "Publish" button, and to help them double-check that what they mean to say, is indeed what they do communicate. Thank you, and happy editing! Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Original research for claim regarding polling for Donald Trump's legal cases on the 2024 United States election page.The discussion is about the topic 2024 United States elections. Thank you.

Just a note on care on refactoring talk page content

Hey, Just dropping you a note that you accidentally broke the indentation of the thread you were trying to close at Talk:2024 United States elections. As the closure itself was contested at ANI, I have removed the closure and restored the version of the talk page to prior of your attempts of fixing the formatting that resulted in more issues and fixed the missing collapse bottom of the other thread you responded. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, upon reviewing after thinking I had corrected the code, I realized I had broken portions of the content within, but had real life to deal with for a bit so couldn't get to it.

I am only recently returning to source editing after years of visual editing, and it painfully shows lol. Thank you for the correction and the note. It is appreciated. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source editing can be a pain if you're more familiar with visual editor. I got lucky and only ever learned on source. I noticed you do a lot of closing; I'd discourage you from closing discussions, especially ones that you were involved in. Most talk page discussions don't need to be closed and automatic archiving can handle any clutter that might build up. Let me know if you want help configuring anything! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2026 United States House of Representatives elections has been accepted

2026 United States House of Representatives elections, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello TheRazgriz and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Additionally editors with fewer than 500 edits may not participate in RFCs in the topic area. I’m removing your comment in the RFC at Talk:Israel. nableezy - 01:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I had missed the extended requirement.

For the record, outside of the bureaucratic issue noted here, was there any other issue with the comment which would justify its removal if I had the invisible 500 tag? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. nableezy - 04:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I assumed, but wanted to help verify. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page. Thank you.

Please don't bludgeon the process

Following BootsED's charges against you on ANI, I took a look at Talk:2024 United States elections. You dominate that page far too much, especially the RfC, where you respond voluminously and repetitiously to pretty much every comment. Once you've made a point, please don't make it five times more at ever increasing length. Please take a look at WP:BLUDGEON for a useful explanation of the problems with your approach. You may be page-blocked from 2024 United States elections and its talkpage if nothing changes. Bishonen | tålk 15:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I hope you read the last reply I left within the RfC, in response to another user directly replying to me, where I note that I was admitting that my personal issue with being concise was a problem I have noted as trying to deal with IRL (true), and that in light of the obvious fact that my position within the RfC had me as it only champion, continuing to participate would only be disruptive and asking the other user (and by extension, everone else) to stop replying there, at least to me. I also noted in that reply that I had already noted my intention to stop actively opposing, shown by my previous revoking of my opposition and moving to note my abstention.

Just to be clear for the record that I was already obviously trying to conform to WP:BLUDGEON already. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, noted, but look... please have more consideration for your reader and use a diff when stuff is hard to find, rather than sending people on a wild-goose chase. It was indeed in your chronologically last post in the RfC that you wrote about being terrible at being concise, but you placed it towards the end of a painfully long post, in the middle of an earlier discussion, above at least four earlier posts by yourself. With some effort, I've found it. It's unlikely that it'll much impress anybody trying to gain a general impression of the discussions on the page, since what looks like your last post at this moment is this. Therefore it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that you were obviously "trying to conform to WP:BLUDGEON already" - it was far from obvious to me. But I'm happy you had actually already realized the problem. Do you ever provide diffs, by the way? They're a great convenience for others. I hope it won't offend if I ask if you know how to create them. Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide is a good resource. Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink is a useful tool for creating diffs. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have used them before, and I do know how to create/use them. An issue for me is the fact that my whole life Ive taken the phrase "the devil is in the details" as apparently my life motto, and especially on serious issues I try to explain myself thoroughly in hopes I can be understood and not have my view/position/stance mischaracterized or slanted. Few things annoy me as much as making a point, only to have that point ignored or taken in a way I did not myself want it to be, by removing context surrounding it. I have been working on this issue of over-explanation IRL, and appreciate any patience given in relation to that. Not asking for special treatment, just not wanting the most uncharitable interpretation of my actions.

I am working and dealing with a medical condition in IRL, but am also in my free time trying to formulate my reply on the NB...trying desperately to condense it down, but there is so much to unpack and respond to in one message. Literally over a month of near constant activity. FYI I will try to have it published within the next several hours, but ask for patience if IRL keeps me from doing so for longer than that. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razgriz, one of the benefits of writing concisely is that the less you write, the less likely Few things annoy me as much as making a point, only to have that point ignored or taken in a way I did not myself want it to be, by removing context surrounding it can happen.

When you write long, you give people eighty gazillion things to decide to reply to (and ignore the part that was really important to you). When you write short, not so much. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true, which is why I have been working on this problem IRL. Unfortunately, understanding what the problem is, and solving the problem, are two very different things...much to my detriment. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]