User talk:ltbdl

this account was formerly used by lettherebedarklight.

This user will accept bribery if offered.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ltbdl! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you removed topically relevant content from Ejaculation. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Ejaculation. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And don't invoke Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, since I know that you are not a newbie. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

never planned on it. ltbdl (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from your username and your editing pattern that you're [[Lettherebedarklight. That's one of the worst clean starts I've ever encountered, right up there with KumiokoCleanStart, which was obviously a parody. . Graham87 15:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@graham87: the connection is meant to be obvious. ltbdl (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. There's {{Former account}}, etc. Graham87 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physical fighting does not constitute edit warring. It constitutes battles and actual wars which may take millions of actual lives. Likely there wouldn’t have been any instances of actual edit wars before the invention of the wiki. CoastRedwood (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@coastredwood: it's a humor page. it's not supposed to be serious or accurate. ltbdl (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but classing edit wars with actual wars just seems wrong, and I mean really wrong. CoastRedwood (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know wikipedians thought this suitable as 'humor'. Gun duels have absolutely no relation to edit wars, and the fact that Wikipedians take this just as 'humor' appears so childish that childish doesn't even seem the right word. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you should have let that edit stand. There is no chance of the edits they want staying in articles. Hearing it from other editors would be of benefit. I think all the editors involved are kids and there is a trolling element. They will return (and get reverted of course) but it might have been handy to have a record. That said, I'm done with the ridiculous notion of mysterious text in the sky, especially with the naff shopped picture they wanted to include last time. There is an SPI for this if they continue. TL:DR...I'm not reinstating their teahouse question but if they post again, my humble opinion is to let it stand. Or not lol. Thanks for the talk page message. Knitsey (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@knitsey: can i have the spi link? ltbdl (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KorbismBiggestFan they call it Korbism, hence the names. Knitsey (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that alot of information was removed from the Boston Consolidated TRACON page due it being unsourced. I would like the information be put back since this information has been verified by people who work at Boston Consolidated TRACON. Lynchie22586 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@lynchie22586: sorry, we can't base an article on word of mouth. ltbdl (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The North and South sector information comes directly from their Standard Operating Procedures Manual Lynchie22586 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the yearly traffic counts comes from the FAA air traffic activity data system website Lynchie22586 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@lynchie22586: then cite those. ltbdl (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 2601:19C:4D81:2480:E96C:61A4:713D:A6E1 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right? Why shouldn't I block the old one? Doug Weller talk 13:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@doug weller: can you at least make it a soft block? it's affecting this account. ltbdl (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ltbdl. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Basketball at the 1997 Summer Universiade, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Part of a notable event. I would use AFD instead. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ltbdl. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Football at the 1997 Summer Universiade, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Part of a notable event. I would use AFD instead. Thank you. BangJan1999 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For stepping up to help with the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report - 'writing funny stuff is *hard*', but your efforts at comedy are good, and hope you keep on aiding us. igordebraga ≠ 04:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your edit summaries on-topic and descriptive of your edit, rather than using them as space for commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks a ton for your work cleaning up Paulina Alexis. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you blanking out short desc on purpose, as here? That seems to serve no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ltbdl, I've added to the SLSS article two sections about the precursor schools. Neither Steveston Secondary School nor Charles E. London Secondary School has text appropriate for merging based on extant reliable sources, and I think those articles should be converted to redirects. Do you know if it is required to AfD the articles before creating the redirects? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@grand'mere eugene: afd isn't necessary. that process is called blank and redirect. ltbdl (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Greatest common divisor, GCD(27, 8)=1, and 24 is actually the maximum multiple of 8 (3x8=24) that is lower than 27. Kunjinkao (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltbdl: That was a bad copyedit you did to the article. More so, you removed information and made assumptions that weren't there when you did the copyedit on the article, that is barely started. I don't know you did that but I don't like it. Why did you decide to remove information? Your not the one that is writing the article. You made assumptions that are not there. For what reason? You seem to have reverted and have starting an edit war for some reason instead of discusses. If if gets reverted I will need to take you up edit warring notice this morning. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ltbdl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Justiyaya 15:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ltbdl :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jagganath01, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Try to talk in a good way. I am not a servant okay mr. Jagganath01 (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ltbdl,

For any future AFDs that you nominate, please provide a substantial deletion rationale that demonstrates you have followed WP:BEFORE, don't just offer a one word policy abbreviation. I have closed AFDs in the past if there is not a reasonable deletion rationale provided by the nominator so please outline your reasons for believing an article subject doesn't have notability instead of just mentioning a policy. What did you think of the article sources? What did you find when you looked for sources that aren't currently in the article? Did you consider a Redirect or Merge? These are points that participants are looking for in a deletion rationale and since you seem to be nominating a lot of articles, please start providing this as is expected. Participants want to see that you are going to as much trouble to evaluate the article and sources as they will when they offer their opinions to a discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you sent this to everyone who participated in the first afd? christ. ltbdl (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get that maybe you don’t want a particular image on this article, but deleting it with the rationale “nope.” is not how to do it. I notice that this is not the first time you deleted/reverted content on this page in an unnecessarily rude manner without a valid rationale. If you think the article needs improvement, actually try to communicate with other editors. If you think the topic isn’t notable, nominate it for deletion. If you think the topic itself is stupid, then don’t edit it. Dronebogus (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With your comment as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing, you've violated the above policy, WP:NPA. some types of comments are never acceptable ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. I'd advise you to quickly withdraw the comment before sanctions are sought for or imposed on you. starship.paint (RUN) 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

get me blocked, i deserve it. ltbdl (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Doug Weller's comments above it appears that this is a clean start account. Per the interaction analyzer [1] it appears we have basically no interaction history prior to the last 24hr. Since I don't know what your prior account was I can't be certain if your comment attacking me was based on some prior interactions. That appears to be a violation of clean start, "The old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." I'm going to ask that you strike the uncivil comment that starship.paint noted. Springee (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ltbdl. Thank you. starship.paint (RUN) 07:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned Per this AE report.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from gender related disputes, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned Per this AE report.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appeal your topic ban. You know just like me that this is nonsense. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I loathe to be one of the "shows up at a user's talk page to lament a ban" people, I'm here at a user's talk page to lament a ban. No ltbdl, you shouldn't have engaged the way that you did, and you were just asking for sanctions (literally). I don't fault the administrators who implemented the ban, and I likely would have supported at least a warning. But there's an underlying issue here that Wikipedia protects POV pushers and punishes those who have a problem with POV pushing. Repeated blatant failures of WP:CPUSH and WP:INSCRUTABLE should be called out and addressed, but the community gives us little means to do so and tends to blame the messenger, resulting in situations like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello lettherebedarklight,

My question from 2022: Your edit comment (it's a copyvio! that explains a lot.) was helpful, but (why?!?!?!?!??!!? ), (why would anyone trying to learn about theatre organs care about this!?!? ), (wtf is this article), were less so and at first, sounded to me that you had personal opinions about what previous editors should or should not have found relevant to the subject matter, and took an ax to it. But with such a large cleanup in mind, shouldn't a discussion have occurred for consensus on the talk page? I understand that copyright violations should be handled immediately, but not everything that you removed were violations.

Currently, you again removed a whole lot of content from the article, without any discussion on the talk page. I would like to know what specific guidelines you are using to determine what facts are worthy of passing your editorial filter. Do you have a background involving pipe organs? I think that many of the items you have removed (now and in the past) ARE of interest and germane to folks wanting to learn about the subject of the article. In the future, could you at least discuss your intentions on the talk page so that the community of editors that care about the content can weigh in and you will have a consensus to work with. Otherwise, you are moving way past BOLD.

I may put back some information and then also start a discussion on the talk page regarding the overall scope of the article, to get input from other folks who are interested.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my standard: unsourced? chop it. ltbdl (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (removing uncited content) is a better summary than (cleanup). I can see that most (but not all) of the stuff you removed was in fact not cited. But right now, most of what is left is not cited either, so blanking the whole thing was also an option. The other option is to find a source, or tag each section with [needs citation] so that at least the information has not been lost, but warns the reader that it is of dubious value. Of course, finding a source for an article you don't want to work on is a pain. My personal solution to that is to not make huge changes to articles I am not willing to put the effort into fixing. That's not a dig. It's just from my background where you only have peer-reviewed changes, etc.

Look, I agree with you that the whole article needs upgrading ... I just think that the only way to improve an article is to get a discussion going on the talk page. Especially an article that is sort of niche, but may benefit from having some of that arcane info in it ... properly cited of course. I'll get off the pot and start the effort, maybe trying to get Erzahler involved also.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, your approach is weird. ltbdl (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply to my concerns, and clarifying the type of editor you are. I won't waste anymore of your time.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. ltbdl (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bobsd for bringing this to light.

To Ltbdl: I am going to say this only once. Large-scale edits without discussing the reason for your "edits" or even allowing the theatre organ editing community as a whole to weigh in on your proposed action is wholly and absolutely unwarranted. Edits purely for personal gain or because you have a bone to pick with someone is strictly "verboten." We do not need to get involved in an edit war.

If you have a specific, legitimate concern about this article, fine. Simply bring it up on the Talk page and let ALL of us knock it around awhile until a consensus is reached on the proposed action. If you can't, or won't, abide by the community guidelines, then I will ask the other editors to lock this topic, and I will knock this up to Administration faster than you can say "Jack Robinson eats peanuts." I hope this drastic action will not be necessary, and I trust I have gotten my point across to you.

Again, thanks to Bobsd for bringing this to my, and the other editors', attention. Erzahler (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't like my edits, revert them. ltbdl (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I missed one instance of the NIGA acronym in the Indian Gaming Association article when I updated it, but this edit summary is not appropriate. I was working in good faith to remove the old acronym and it wasn't on purpose as I was retaining other instances of it in existing sources and didn't see it was within article text. Assume good faith next time. Nate • (chatter) 16:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that wasn't directed at you. ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai didn't said the site was abandoned! They said "I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so."! Stop editing 15.ai wiki or requesting its removal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketKnightX (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RocketKnightX: he's clearly abandoned it... ltbdl☃ (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No! No he didnt! Stop vandalizing the page! RocketKnightX (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just sound like the site is dead, but it's not. It's under maintenance. RocketKnightX (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have been wanting to change the site status to abandoned for a while. I understand that he may not have directly said that he abandoned it, but I will try to respectfully bring the reasons over as to why many believe the site to be dead.

15 mentioned not going on Twitter until the site was updated. 15 had changed his profile picture. The server and domain that 15[dot]ai sits on is currently used as a TF2 server. This is not speculation during the time I write this; the talk page on the Wikipedia have a URL to the server, which is a subdomain of 15[dot]ai. Alledged sites connected to him have also been found.

I feel like Wikipedia is not the place for an editing war, so I'd like to hear your side as well. Besides 15's comment saying that 15 is the same person as before, what else would you like to add for those who doubt that the project is still under maintenance? Thought 1915 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell Ltbdl to stop vandalizing? Please? If they don't stop, report them. RocketKnightX (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no administrative power to do that and such action remains outside of my ability. I highly reccomend that you resolve this issue with Ltbdl somehow though. Although these reverts have taken place over a span greater than 24 hours, both of your reverts, not taking the 24-hour clause into account, are approaching the 3RR threshold. I will open a topic on the respective Wikipedia page so that a resolution can occur quicker. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the proof: https://x.com/kokytkdl/status/1840395973647888432 RocketKnightX (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop that! RocketKnightX (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying! RocketKnightX (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop that, seriously. 15 never said the project was abandoned and said it won't be on Twitter until the update was completed. If you stubbornly refuse to understand, then you're bad. RocketKnightX (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://x.com/kokytkdl/status/1840395973647888432 RocketKnightX (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I replaced the doll picture is because if you look closely, the women is forced to grow up into a relationship with a man as if it’s a normal part of life that every woman must go though. The new picture generically depicts the dolls and the comparison without being sexist. I know the article is not about dolls but I believe it detracts from the article. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

huh???????? ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all people believe they must be in relationships to be happy. Women are commonly thought of by men as means to an end to “be happy” because they only believe a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman will make them happy.

One article not reaffirming this belief is a win for me. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

goodbye! ltbdl☃ (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting stuff on your talk that is unrelated to requesting an unblock. If you do it again I will revoke your talkpage access. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you in the pay of the wmf or something? ltbdl☃ (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]