User talk:Cessaune/Archive 1

2929:(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? 1710: 2013: 31: 2438: 662: 77: 3261: 2331: 2048: 1942: 1791: 1653: 1078: 993: 945: 762: 703: 371: 323: 275: 588: 3189: 1573: 2245: 1202: 877:—and then when I call out such behavior present in other talk page claims, you basically accuse me of either being ignorant or being unwilling to fully investigate... what? You can say what you want, but, the fact of the matter is: I don't care, unless you are actually willing to take the time to prove your own statements. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but leave me alone in that case. 2766: 2140: 1507: 1414: 1317: 1840: 1151: 2550:. 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 2892:

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

220:

Hello, I noticed that you were editing my Sandbox page on the Rewrite of the Donald Trump Lead. Thanks! I'm just wondering what your goal was, because another user on the Donald Trump talk page told me how to get the diff he wanted. I thought I already did that and posted the link. In other words, I

2817:

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

1048:

We never state the consensus item verbatim in the close statement. The close statement merely needs to accurately reflect the consensus. In this case, "Clear consensus for option 1. Applies only to good-faith complaints." would probably suffice, but you could say more in summary of the discussion if

236:

You should do it on a paragraph-to-paragraph basis, so that they can actually compare to each other. For example, the last paragraphs of both the current lead and the proposed lead don't exactly line up, so they can't be compared in the diff. I was going to do it but didn't want to edit your sandbox

2667:

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

2620:

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

2380:

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

2604:

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

856:

If there is one issue that seems to be a reoccuring point of annoyance, SPECIFICO, you make a claim and then don't back it up with any evidence. So when you talk about "credibility" and "empty disparagement" it just serves to piss me off. I don't just say things to say things, and I always try to

809:

You should know better than to make irrelevant personal remarks on an article talk page, and you should be mindful that your own credibility greatly suffers from such lapses. If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made, it is best to

880:

And, also, I don't care about "credibility". And, even if I did, any reasoned editor would realize that my remarks are, at the very least, thought-out, even if they disagree with them. I don't just say stuff to say stuff. I constantly strive to be fair in my assessments, though I am obviously,

848:

As always, I am sorry if my comments delved into a more negative realm than I had thought. I never intend to do that. However, what I said still stands—screaming 'cherrypicked!' into the void with barely even a low-level explanation is time-wasting and counterproductive. I do agree that

2897:

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

2968:

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

2776:; 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 2907:

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

1364: 2621:

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

2695:

worst, closings of an AfD or RfC discussion to which I've been privy in all my years in Knowledge (XXG). 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.

2952:

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.

1044:

You have probably noticed by now that I reverted you in the consensus list and added #61. This means your close statement is now incorrect, and it should be fixed before the discussion gets manually archived per #13, 24 hours after your close.

2628:

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

1913:

Yikes, I was lazy and the revert was premature. As far as I'm aware, the article makes no substantial mention of anything pertaning to "respect for the victims". The sentence before is verified in the article, underneath the header

2586:

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

2675:

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

1522: 221:

don't understand how what I should do is different from what I did. To be honest I am a little lost here since I'm not that experienced of an editor. So let me know what the next steps should be if you would like. Thanks again!

2687:

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

2566:

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,

1040:

Thanks for the close. I would've left it open for at least another few days, but I'm happy if everybody else is. I guess it had reached the point of diminishing returns, and the odds of it going a different way were slim.

2290: 1595: 3310:

Cessaune, you opened this review on April 2 saying it would take you about a week, but haven't returned since. Are you still planning to do the review, and will it be soon, or would you rather withdraw? Thank you.

2870:

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.

2191: 1479: 1380: 2274:. 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 903:

Your response does not show much inclination to self-reflection regarding simple, documented criticism. Under the circumstances, I'm not going to devote further time to "analysis" of your behavior.

1733: 1724: 1463: 1358: 2259: 133: 125: 110: 102: 98: 600:

Wow that Vector 2022 RfC was tough. Apologise for the confusing reply directed at that IP. Anyway, hope your day is going well. I guess you are using 2010 Vector. What is next? Matrices?

2469:, 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. 1349: 1336: 3211: 1052:

Your last sentence in the close statement is a misstatement of the consensus. The new procedure applies only to the good faith complaints; the bad faith complaints are shot on sight. ―

330: 2547: 2633:

what the Oppose ~!votes were about. I got nothing else to say. I'm currently still working in Knowledge (XXG) but also reviewing if it's worthy and deserves my time any more. -

2194:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1482:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1383:

after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

451:

I have no idea what you mean by "following ARBCOM stuff", unless you mean that a slow motion edit war is not explicitly prohibited with a bright-line restriction banhammer.

3117: 2680:

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.

888:

respond to this with a coherent argument that goes beyond the realm of simply making a claim. Please analyze my statements about your edits. Or don't respond at all.

952: 2338: 2558:

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

124:

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

857:

include at least a little bit of evidence. You come to my talk page, you do not analyze any of the claims I made about your remarks, and then you make your

190: 1720: 710: 2885:

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.

3217: 2222:, self-proclaimed liberator of the plant world, may want to destroy you for repeating the scurrilous lie that plants do not have "sensitive souls". ;-) 2147: 1611: 2597:. 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 1221:

within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.

2175: 1853: 561:

If you go to my talk page, on the left hand side there is a link "Email this user" under Tools. I rather not type it here, you know, for privacy.

492:

Do I have your permission to close & hat the discussion-in-question? There doesn't seem to be a consensus for undoing the revert-in-question.

1421: 1324: 136:. 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. 3149:

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).

186: 3177: 2562:

found it in themselves to go ahead and close the RfC, justifying the decision in favor of Oppose on arbitrary, personal arguments, invoking

2554:, to be honest. (If I weren't preoccupied with personal issues and absent from Knowledge (XXG), I'd have proposed that the RfC be closed by 1561: 1196: 769: 2313: 2119: 838:, I normally refrain from making those sort of remarks. It just pisses me off when people don't fully explain themselves. And, in fact, I 2986:

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).

722: 1000: 129: 1210: 1133: 2777: 2651:, which is entirely different. You also don't seem to distinguish between US role in creating the accord vs. US hosting a ceremony. 1255:. If you don't want/don't have time to do the Review now - whatever the situation is, that's cool. I'll follow the instructions at 3094: 1539: 1154:

This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

2309: 2793: 2283: 1259:

and release the article back into the pool of articles waiting for a GA Review. Just let me know what you want to do. Cheers,

2797: 2055: 1213:

for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a

1206: 2025:

Thank you for engaging with the elusive WMF regarding Vector 2022. (I'm looking at old posts, but thank you regardless.)

618:

Matrix: a modal skin for editing where you can rearrange and resize columns to fit your needs? Sounds pretty cool to me.

106: 3239: 2893:"brokering"), only that the signing was hosted, implicitly by him, at the White House. I decided to specify that it was 2855:, respectfully, why are my comments being moved, but not the comments of others that are placed in the survey sections? 2454: 1627: 1252: 2805: 2492: 2295: 2219: 1237: 1170: 813: 3079: 2837:

That's my three, barring self-reverts. Stop unilaterally moving my comments. They are where they are for a reason.

2543: 2374: 2195: 2181: 1483: 1469: 1384: 1370: 1218: 38: 1401: 1181: 1122: 3304: 477:

All examples of people talking to me. This isn't bludgeon. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm dropping the argument.

2810: 2789: 2773: 2598: 2218:

I missed this one while I was on vacation in October. Well done on a historic plant fact for DYK. Although now

2095:

Thanks for your attention to this article. I can provide scans of the off-line citations if needed. Regards. --

2030: 1716: 1442: 1433: 1192: 1185: 1137: 1126: 2271: 2123: 2178:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1994: 1466:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 1367:. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page 605: 676:

Also on the V22 boondoggle! Noticed you somehow had less than me. Your !vote and replies were pretty good!

180: 3061: 3029: 2991: 2876: 2827: 2739: 2026: 1233: 1228: 1166: 1161: 1085: 427: 378: 2781: 871:

If you do not understand -- or do not wish to take the time to fully investigate -- the points being made

3316: 2559: 2386: 2152: 1904: 1895:

Also, looking through that souce, I don't see any mention of artifacts falling into private possession,

1885: 1660: 1426: 1329: 2458: 865:

remarks, without any sort of analyzation whatsoever. You spit out your opinion and treat it like fact:

419: 3228:

You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

1620:

You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

1438:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 3154: 3150: 3125: 3121: 3102: 3098: 2920:

of the whole issue. I hope no one opposes the inclusion of the Abraham Accords on the basis of their

1851:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at

1535: 1297: 1264: 633:

Matrix would actually be a good name for the next skin (or maybe even this one when it's finished?).

171:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

154: 2594: 2253: 818:'s efforts can better be deployed on more essential matters than rebutting your empty disparagement. 3068: 2975: 2701: 2657: 2638: 2576: 2527: 2510: 2480: 1949: 1454: 909: 824: 688: 640: 257: 226: 3281: