User talk:Cabayi

Hi Cabayi. You had assisted me to change my current username due to privacy concerns. I now wish to delete the third revision of my user log which shows my old username. Can you please assist with this minor request? Thanks in advance.

Link is Special:Log/Benzekre Benzekre (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've been beaten to it. Cabayi (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabyi. Since I often work on file related stuff with Fastily and have their user talk page on my watchlist, I noticed what was going on at User talk:Line which 1200. Line which 1200's response to your unblock request decline seems to have moved into NLT territory in addition to more BLP violations. It might seem a little quick, but perhaps taking away their tpa should be considered because I don't see any indication that Line which 1200 is going to stop trying to right whatever great wrong they perceive to have been inflicted upon them and will likely continue their BLPCOI against the other person they've been referring to on their user page and user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, to me it reads like the user is clumsily claiming a legal right to freedom of expression. ESL issues maybe? I guess we'll have to wait for the ten days to expire. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cabayi (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they persisted in using their talk page inappropriately. Access revoked. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I'm hoping you can help deal with an anonymous contributor. Some context can be found here, but the TLDR is that an anon contributor added Islamism to the ideology section of a political party's infobox but used a problematic source; a news article quoting a former member who left to found a competing party. If you take a look at the edit history of Malaysian United Indigenous Party you'll see that while I provided a reason as to why it shouldn't be included in the infobox, they kept adding it back and behaved aggressively. I brought this matter to user Daniel Case, but they stopped responding to me for whatever reason, so I'm hoping that you could take some time to check this out instead. Thanks! Sisuvia (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He might find it easier to help you, and a better use of his time, if you used wikilinks

Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:107B:1540:7FD5:D47B:191A:1196

rather than external links

[1].

Even easier if you presented him with the range you want considered, Special:Contributions/2a04:cec0:1060::/43. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The passive aggressiveness seems unwarranted and is a bit hurtful, but okay. I'll keep in mind that wikilinnks are more convenient, and I though "range" simply meant the the list of IP addresses that were being used, which is what I compiled for them. So will you be helping me with this or would you prefer I go back to Daniel? Thanks, anyway. Sisuvia (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend making reports on the relevant noticeboards, WP:AIV in this case. It'll then be handled by an available admin and you're not left waiting on one specific admin. For this report, the IP range has not touched those articles in over four weeks so it's unlikely any meaningful action could be taken now. Cabayi (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of an edit war when I was replacing sourced facts that have been removed by non registered users. MerryPranksters (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not engaged in any discussion on the article's talk page. WP:BRD applies. You now have a 24 hour gap to engage in constructive discussion rather than reverting each other and leaving messages only in your edit summaries. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section to the Ted Williams talk page, seeking consensus on religion and Ted Williams.24.184.21.30 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from user

Dear Cabayi, you admonished me for adding material to the Ted Williams page without a source. If you look at the editing history, you will see, first, that I have repeatedly added a reference to the Ben Bradlee Jr. biography of Ted Williams, and that another user has repeatedly removed it. Second, you will see that I have removed the unencyclopedic statements of opinion by this other user. Here is what he has posted, in various forms, and that I have removed: Referring to Williams's atheism, as documented by his biographers, "Though this was mostly fabricated by writers after he died. There are no credible sources to prove this. This was perpetuated by two of his children to convince the courts to allow them to freeze their father." This other user may have a strong belief that something was "fabricated," but he offers no source for this. This other user may have a strong belief that something was "perpetuated," or why that was done, but he offers no source for this. I suspect that you have barred me from editing because I am not a registered user, not because you have looked at the editing trail in this case. Why allow opinion to be posted? Why punish a user who removes opinion? Even now, that user has posted that Ted Williams's belief, or non belief, has been "disproven." I hope we all agree that this is not something that can be "disproven." That's the opinion of the user, not a fact, not encyclopedic. That user repeatedly removes references, and sources, pointing to biographers describing Ted Williams as an atheist. What should we do about that? How does blocking me cure that?24.184.21.30 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24.184.21.30, it ensures that, for 24 hours at least, you and MerryPranksters engage in meaningful discussion to achieve WP:CONSENSUS rather than flipping content back and forth. It would be better if the two of you did that on the article's talk page rather than here. Other folks who have an interest in the article may want to chip in. Cabayi (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply. I have added a section to the Ted Williams talk page, seeking consensus on religion and Ted Williams.24.184.21.30 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your attention to the Bernadette Thompson article! I would like to clarify that the article has already been reviewed and assigned a C-class rating, which indicates that it is suitable for mainspace. Some of the messages regarding citations for verification and neutrality were worked on prior to this review. Given that it meets notability and verification standards, and that there is sufficient consensus supporting its placement in the mainspace, I will be reverting the article back to its original location.

I appreciate your efforts to maintain quality, and any further improvements can still be made directly within the mainspace. Thank you for your understanding! Fashionista345 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]