User talk:Picard's Facepalm

Please read this post from the archive.today owner: https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/ . It is supposed to redirect to something else. That way, if he loses that "something else", the .today domain will redirect to another domain.

(And BTW: Thank you for your former military service - the country appreciates you!)

Rlink2 (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You have removed my edit of adding Vondie to the cast, but he's definitely in it, he plays an unnamed Voice-Print Analyst and you can find it everywhere on the internet. Look up the movie's IMDB page or do a google image search or watch the movie again because he is definitely in it.

::You didn't cite any references, IMDB is not considered a WP:RS (See: WP:IMDB) and it is not a starring role. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Picard's Facepalm,

I just wanted to send you this message as an apology for potentially starting an edit war on The Rock page. I felt that the version I created flowed better but if you think otherwise, I won't stop you from reverting it. I mean no ill will towards you or anyone/anything else, and I just wanted to get that across.

Hope you have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.65.86 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the Antonov AKS from the Antonov An-225 Mriya because it was canceled. Canceled related aircraft are usually included in the infobox no matter what stage they were in before cancellation. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

People know that Mat Velloso posted a video of a mod (not a feature) on Twitter? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_(2020_video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1163623871

Why is this tweet https://twitter.com/matvelloso/status/1376212622828167171 important enough to be mentioned in an article about the game? Please undo your change and remove your message. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.105.173 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:Because it is referenced by the article cited - and not everyone who reads the article may know about it. I actually didn't - and that is the entire point of an encyclopedic article with references: to inform people. There are people who don't know that MSFS 2024 or even 2020 exists... but they know that MSFS existed. Should the sections on 20 and 24 be removed just because some people do know they exist? Same logic applies. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

::We seem to be talking about different topics. Please check the link I provided above. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

::You are adding a sentence that states that a dude posted a video on twitter. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. In the future, please be more careful when using Twinkle. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

:::I didn't add anything. I restored a destructive edit which you conducted to ref'ed & cited content. I am using TW just fine. In the future please do not WP:SANDBOX on people's talk pages as you have repeatedly with mine. Instead be sure to use the WP:PREVIEW to review and make changes before committing your edits. Also, be sure to include edit summaries when you make edits to articles and talk pages, and consider WP:REGISTERing a new account rather than using an anonymous, shared IP address. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Please do not cite unreliable sources as you did in this edit. Reviews need to be cited to reliable sources. A reliable source is something like The New York Times, Variety, or the BBC. If you have trouble recognizing reliable sources, you can ask at WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:Not sure I agree with your determination of the site in question as being unreliable. There are numerous sources of reference cited all over the Project which may not hold the caliber and notoriety of NYT and the BBC - but are by all means considered reliable. Considering that the site in question has never been mentioned in WP:RSN and is also not listed in WP:RSP - in addition to having over 700 movie reviews by over a dozen different reviewers, current film & actor news, conducts and publishes interviews - I don't know that being dismissive of the source's reliability is the right play to make.

:While I agree the WP article editor him/herself was spamming (as evidenced by their edit history) - the source itself does seem to meet WP:SOURCEDEF, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES. It also has an open call on the site for additional reviewers & contributors. Taking all of this in totality - I'd have to say it meets RS criteria, and is not exactly a small, self-serving potato. I'd like to re-add the material and ref - but if you really think it warrants further scrutiny and input from others - I'd be happy to start a discussion on WP:RSN. Looking forward to your reply. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:: There are a lot of film review blogs. Most of them are run by enthusiastic amateurs. An open call for contributors is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. They should be exclusively hiring professional journalists who have experience, not enthusiastic fans. We have sites like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, and Los Angeles Times that regularly review American films. There is no reason to resort to blogs run by amateurs, which would place undue weight on their opinions. This site is analogous to WhatCulture (see WP:WHATCULTURE), a site that the author also writes for. "{{tq|Writers should have some mix of expertise, experience, and/or enthusiasm}}" (my emphasis added) from [https://web.archive.org/web/20230601053919/https://filmobsessive.com/contact-us/write-for-us/ their recruitment page] is basically the same criticism as WhatCulture ("no expertise"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Understood. Thanks for your time and explanation. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about my edit. I added additional actors/actresses to that section that are not only well known, but more well known than the ones that are there/you kept. I also rearranged some of them, with the most well known toward the top. For example, Val Kilmer is at the bottom of the list and is one of the most well known actors in recent history. 66.220.108.197 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

:If they are well-known or not is not the point. The infobox is for starring roles, and is reflected in the template for the infobox: "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits.". Their arrangement should also be reflective of the billing block. Please be sure to adhere to these guidelines - they are readily evident in all of the film related articles on WP. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please leave my talk page posts alone. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:Please don't issue lvl4im warnings on user or anonip talk pages which have only warranted a lvl1. I am all about bringing the hammer when it comes to people vandalizing WP, but there is a warning escalation protocol which needs to be followed in such instances. As a veteran editor and vandal fighter - you already know that. I get equally frustrated when I see articles I monitor get hit with ridiculous vandalism time and again - often of the same type. But until/unless the vandal escalates - we cannot either. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

::You edit anyway you want, leave my stuff alone. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, that's not the correct response. See WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:RTP, and WP:UWLEVELS. Now I need to look into warning & WP:TWABUSE. And here I was hoping for a quiet day. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:Don't care, it's my response. Like I said, edit the way you believe and leave me alone. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

::Sadly, your responses here have ensured that will not happen. Your warn template history is quite extreme, even by my standards - and that's quite an accomplishment. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Since you thanked my edit, maybe you'll like to comment here. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for draftifying, that was dumb of me. Qcne (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

:No worries.... things happen. Looks like it has all been handled now and the pages & OA are gone (INDEF'ed). --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

When you said you have the right to edit your own talk page, I thought you're correct, until you accused me of deleting other users' comment on your talk page, which was actually done by yourself. I just restored it. And I want to remind you again: "Even on English Wikipedia, you can't just delete other users' comment even though it was sent on your own talk page, especially when you're in a conflict or if it's a warning given by other user, it's based on true story." 140.0.19.54 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

:And I remember there's a rule saying that closing a discussion can't be done by users involved in it. Sorry, maybe I remember it wrong 140.0.19.54 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

::I had originally removed this bizarrely inaccurate comment from you, after for some strange reason you pursued me here from another wiki in some sort of effort to harass me. I have now actually restored that comment so I can address it, as your disposition is still bugging me, all this time later.

::In simple statement - you are flatly wrong and you are indeed remembering wrong.

::-WP:OWNTALK, which is part of WP:TPG explicitly states, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." and "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic, and includes both registered and unregistered users.".

::-WP:REMOVED which is part of WP:UP states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages" and "If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so.".

::-As part of that same, overarching policy, WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK explicitly lists what types of content a user cannot remove from their own talk page:

::* Declined unblocks on a currently active block

::* Deletion maintenance tags while the topic is actively being discussed

::* Speedy deletion tags

::* Messages to other/multiple users on AnonIP talk pages

::-WP:DRC very clearly states as the leading sentence for the policy: "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored."

::Yes - this is all, literally policy here at EnWP, despite your claims and beliefs. This should in fact be the policy across ALL of WP - and it seems clear that the administrators of the Indonesian WP project are grossly misinterpreting the base policies which govern the project in such matters.

::You may post your apology below, and you can further assist by calling these policies to the attention of those admins, as I am wrongfully no longer able to post or respond there. They can then remove the block and restore my talk page to the state I left it. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've simply changed the chunk of text into the default text as given in {{tl|logo fur}}. See Special:PermaLink/1224934104 --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:I understand what you did - but don't agree with the result per WP:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-logo and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_upload_wizard&withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js&withCSS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.css| Upload Wizard], when selecting "Copyrighted, non-free but fair-use". All those fields are there to support rationale & justification for use per WP:NFC. Stripping that information may put that justification at risk. In scanning just your most recent 250 of edits - it seems you may have actually put hundreds of images and/or logos at risk with this type of edit. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, dearest Picard's Facepalm, how are you?

I undid the revision of Willform (March, 4th) on this page, because I think uninfluent is someone shows goatee or not. Isn't it? Rei Momo (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

:Greetings. I do not regularly patrol that page - but I did take a look at the edits in question. Your edit looks good to me, and "sporting a beard" is unusual, normal wording. It is certainly slang in American English and doesn't really have a place as a descriptor in an article like that. I might even go so far as to say it is unnecessary WP:PUFFERY. Thanks for catching that! --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm, I have added a citation for the miniature replica of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Can you please review it for me? Thanks. • ^{Wikipedia Wonder} _{What shall I do?} ^{Feel free.} • 220.255.180.65 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

:Ignoring the (yet another) block evasion on your part - which you seriously and desperately need to learn from - there are a few issues to address here:

:First - you actually added a link to an external website in the edit you mentioned above. This is in violation of WP:ELNO. No links to locations outside of WP are to be placed inline or mid-stream within the articles. THey are to be contained to the "External Links" portions of articles - if one exists or if the external link is even appropriate (most are not). Myself and others have made numerous mentions to you across all of your IPs and registered WP:SOCK account talk pages for you to read and understand WP:REF (or WP:CITE) so that you know how to properly cite sources for the material you add to articles.

:To date you have refused to do this - instead reverting to inline, external links, posting external links to article and user talk pages, or just general proclamations on your part about things. None of this is the proper way to cite references. There are even tools and templates surrounding the editing window for adding citations. It is IMPERATIVE that you read and understand these links, and every other link that has been provided to you across all your IPs and accounts - including the links which you have deleted by removing the notifications, warnings and comments left by other users. Thousands of other users edit WP every day in accordance with these policies, procedures and methods. You can too. Well - if you ever manage to stop evading blocks long enough to allow them to expire and register (or reset the password for) an account.

:Second - your most recent addition to the article in question is laden with unnecessary adjectives of embellishment and color commentary. It is essential that WP articles are written from a neutral point of view and free of such things. Please read (and understand) WP:NPOV, WP:PUFFERY and WP:MOS.

:Thirdly - the material that you are trying to add honestly does not meet notability requirements for the article. There are many other mockups and parade-float versions of aircraft around the world - including ones used by other military squadrons. They are not referenced in any other parent-aircraft articles. As there is nothing really unique or special about the one in particular that you seem hell-bent on adding - and it is not at all a functional aircraft, it is pretty clear that the consensus among everyone who has reverted your edits is that it doesn't really have a place in the article which is solely focused on the actual aircraft. There is no encyclopedic value to adding it to this article. Perhaps in an article about parade floats or aircraft mockups - but not this one. See WP:NN.

:As a side comment - you really need to get your shit together. You've been blocked and tried to evade blocks through WP:SOCK and IPs more than anyone else I have ever seen on WP, have flat out ignored what multiple users and admins have told you in order to resolve the issues, made threats and personal attacks against admins and other users, and have posted random, inane ramblings in efforts to justify your actions. This is on top of you trying to tell people that you are going to be fired if you don't make this particular edit to WP - while simultaneously claiming to be the boss and co-worker of the same person. Let me be crystal clear: It is not your job to edit WP. No matter what your supposed "boss" or anyone else tells you - it is not. See WP:COI.

:In all honesty - you desperately need to take a WP:WIKIBREAK. You're taking this place far too seriously, have had far too many bad interactions and you have waaay too many eyes on you which is only going to lead to enhanced scrutiny over your every move here. Separate yourself from this place for a very extended period of time - if not permanently. WP is not a good fit for you. Do yourself (and WP) a massive favor and step away. There is a whole world out there of much better things for you.

:Another note - AnonIPs do not generally have or use custom WP:SIGNATURES. Those are typically attributed to registered accounts. In either case - I really do not appreciate you stealing mine.

:With this - I have also reached my ends & limitations with you. I will no longer engage in trying to help guide and correct your conduct here on WP. You've been given ample advice and links to educational resources to guide you to a fruitful presence here on WP - by numerous people besides myself. You flatly refuse to embark on that path. If there were a WP article for "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink" it would have your photo at the top of the infobox. I'm done. I've exhausted far too much effort into you than I should have. WP is not your job - and taking care of you is not mine. I don't have time nor interest in this shit anymore. From here on out - my only recourse is going to be continued reversions, fixes, warns and reports of any illicit edits on your part. Past that - you're either someone else's problem now, or you're on your own.

:Good luck. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

Hi PF!

Thank you for the updates and advice on "Heat." I was surprised to find a missing section on the actual filming of the movie. It's like discussing a fantastic meal by covering the prep, recipe, and tasting but leaving out the actual cooking. I know it was not perfect but, "I had to get it on".

Cheers! Table at dorsia (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't post requests for revision deletion on public forums, per WP:RFO: {{tq|You must never draw attention to suppressible material, or any links to suppressible material.}} —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:It's certainly been some years since I have had to do one of those - probably a decade. In the past - ANIing them had always been encouraged - is there a new avenue in order to report these? Thanks --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

::I don't think it's ever been encouraged to post it on ANI.. In the future, please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Sounds good - thank you. Was not aware that was there. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi you mentioned that I reverted an edit. It was probably a mistake, but just for my education, could you tell me which edit that was?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isoceles-sai#c-Picard's_Facepalm-20241021140900-October_2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that I love your username so very much. Joyous! Noise! 17:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for that. I find myself using that animated gif all the time online in social medial - and it is often what goes through my head when I see some of the edits I see some people do here on WP - so, I figured it fits. :D --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Better_Off_Dead_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1263770142 (diff)] I wasn't doing an "end run around" anything by changing the short description.

WP:SDPURPOSE is "disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields" (people using searches are separate from people who might see the disambig page)

Until recently WP:SDEXAMPLES specifically recommended using "YEAR film by director" to disambiguate films in the short description and many film articles use this format rather than the more generic description used for TV articles. It is not clear why they changed this previously clear advice or why anyone would prefer a generic short description over a more specific one.

A very generic description might be good enough to do that disambiguation but the name of a key person such as the director seems like a better and much more specific way to disambiguate similar titles. (The disambig page Better Off Dead uses a key person, the starring actor John Cusack to disambiguate this film.)

A more specific short description may not be entirely necessary in the case of Better Off Dead but I wanted to make it absolutely clear that my edit was not about avoiding but all about trying to better follow the guidelines in keeping with WP:SDPURPOSE and entirely in WP:GOODFAITH. -- 109.76.129.67 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.46.25.83&diff=prev&oldid=1266864884 this], users are allowed to remove block notices. The only thing they can't remove is declined unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:Interesting... and unfortunate. Is this a policy that was changed at some point? Many, many moons ago I was told exactly the opposite by 2 admins when I tried removing an active block notif of my own :). Either way - understood... reviewed all the policy pages surrounding it, and updated my internal KB.

:That being said - the user in question DID submit an unblock request, and then immediately deleted the entire section - block notif and unblock req. The req had not yet been acted upon. In this instance would it just be ignored as the user removed the whole thing? Just for my own curiosity. Thanks! --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 16:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think the policy has changed recently; if you scan the history of WP:USERPAGE, it looks like it was close to its current form in this regard as early as 2011. Some admins have gotten this one wrong, because it does seem entirely sensible that removing block notices would be frowned upon. I'd just treat it as if the user removed the whole thing; if a user wants to back off an unblock request, they're quite welcome to. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Duly noted. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 16:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi - please could you explain why you have restored singular nouns without an 's? You have pointed to a section which says 'consider rewording', but the edits you have made do not reword, but rather reinstate edits that contradict the Manual of Style. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:As I mentioned in the edit notes - please take the discussion to the talk page for the article. This is a VERY old discussion that has been warring on this page for years, and has been already resolved numerous times. Between MOS:POSS, WP:ENGVAR and English plurals it seems to be supported in a British-written article. If you wish to discuss further - please take it to Talk:Genesis (band). It is not the right place to try to be resolved on my talk page. Thanks --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hmmm. You haven't answered my question, and I should point out that the edits I'm referring to don't relate to ENGVAR or English plurals in any way.

::If you're telling me that you and other editors have agreed to ignore the MoS, then that's a pretty big problem. You really shouldn't revert editors applying the MoS correctly, especially when you say they got it wrong and use the fact they didn't get it wrong as evidence. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::: As you have now engaged in multiple discussions on the topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToaneeM&diff=1272459777&oldid=1258285521| here], here, and here - there is no need to pursue it further additionally on my talk page. As I mentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&diff=1272474274&oldid=1272473054| in my original edit summary on the article], in my response above, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&diff=1272629633&oldid=1272628398| as you have been advised by an admin] - the discussion needs to happen at Talk:Genesis (band). Keeping these types of discussions in one location is the only way to get them resolved, vs. throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks - as this often yields conflicting results. Please pursue future efforts more concisely. This is not only going to result in a more efficient resolution, but also one which aligns via consensus for the betterment of the Wikipedia project - even if it doesn't always align with your desires or interpretations.

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

{{tq|Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason.}} Wikipedians are not even allowed to compile factual evidence on-wiki unless it will be used in a timely manner. This section on the other hand, looks like a trophy case of some kind. BusterD (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed}} is the rest of that guideline. Not only do I have a good reason, but the list is used and checked against daily, if not several times a day. It is not at all a trophy case, though I guess the INDEF'ed user could be removed and possibly the (currently) corrected one. But otherwise it is a list of checks and context references, along with links to frequently used resources for each - just like the list of shortcuts above it.

:So - there's my grounds for it - and as you can see, they are quite valid and it is actively used. But ultimately if there is a consensus that it is a violation, I will remove it. The Way of the Wiki... --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:NOTE: INDEF'ed and corrected users are now removed. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have to chime in here and agree with BusterD - this list feels like a wikistalking todo-list of editors you don't like. If you think they deserve sanctions take them to ANI - otherwise leave them alone. It's borderline harrassment and intimidatation, and definitely uncivil. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Wow... well - you are taking it wildly out of context and are making unfounded accusations. I do not like nor dislike any editors. These are simply ones which are habitually problematic across articles I traditionally monitor or otherwise come across in patrolling. That is what I dislike - regardless of who. If it were stalking then I'd be exhaustively checking their doings elsewhere, which is not the case.

:::There is always an opportunity to correct or rehabilitate habitual, problematic behaviors & editors - without the need to overreact and take it to ANI right out of the gate. That should be reserved for genuine vandals, or people coming off sanction and causing even more chaos. That is the preferred methodology per past discussions about such kind of users with other admins - and I presume that stance still continues today? Sometimes users need the opportunity to grow without being smited by the admin. So - that is and should be the first route.

:::Some have in fact corrected their conduct, in which case they have indeed been removed from the list, as you can see. That being said - you will also note that I actually have taken to reporting some of them, and that is why they have been sanctioned. Yet some come off their sanction and resume their detractive habits and need further assistance to improve, or even additional ANIs. The one thing it isn't is harassment, and I do not at all appreciate having such a presumptive and accusatory bar being levelled at me. Only one person decides the reason(s) why I do things - and that's me. Nobody else will ever tell me why I do something, no matter who they think they are.

:::I have given a very clear and valid explanation here, and it is not at all in alignment pretty much anything in your reply. If you'd like to re-engage within the correct context, I am happy to do so, and am open to further suggestion. But I can't get on board with just about anything of your assesment, as it comes from a point of almost total misunderstanding of what I am doing, how and why. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 19:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Please just take the list off-wiki. It's textbook polemic: {{tq|Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws}}, and {{tq|Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed}} are relevant. Your usage of the list to "monitor" the users "several times a day" is not a valid reason to keep it on-wiki. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:*Picard's Facepalm, if you are set on having this content on Wikipedia, please move it off your main User page and keep it on a sub-User page. The prominent place of this list for active editors can serve as a form of intimidation and hounding. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:This is actually a great idea. That way it will still serve in its functional capacity while also being out of sight, and I can nix the narrative portion as well. Thank you for suggesting it - I will take to doing so shortly. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:Aaaaand done. Thank you again for the reasonable idea & solution. Appreciate your willingness to work with me on an amicable solution. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:*::I’m sorry you’re going thru this. Things are not at all like the old days. Rules first, encyclopedia second. The only thing that’s still completely the same is ANI is fucked up. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:::Also, I very much like the snowflakes Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here's a link to to that section. BusterD (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Sigh. Was that really necessary? We were making good progress here. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried. So much for that. Guess it's time for another wikibreak. That's fine - I got better shit to do. But yeah, keep turning away good editors, vandal fighters, patrollers and coaches and y'all are gonna end up in the same situation of diminished participant numbers on those tracks just like you are with with the greatly diminished quality admin count, per what was accidentally revealed at the Election discussion.

Oh, and @GreenLipstickLesbian, as for your "Either way, Picard, I'm sorry for putting this out there."... no you're not. Not one damn bit.

See y'all in another 10 or so, perhaps. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 07:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.

@BusterD - You do not have any need to further mention me on WP - so ensure that you do not. You have already done more than enough damage in the wake of your being leashed around WP by an AnonIP. Any further mention amounts to nothing more than WP:GRAVEDANCING on your part, and is blindingly apparent in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2F2024_review%2FPhase_III%2FAdministrator_elections&diff=1280714767&oldid=1280714367| this edit] in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections. Absolutely nothing is contributed in the context of the discussion at hand other than your standing atop my carcass, while waving your flag with one hand and beating your chest with the other, while triggering the edit filter and notification system. Your supposed "final comment" there is entirely inconsequential to the larger discussion or even the minutia of that particular subthread. Further such violations of WP policy on your part will be ANI'd and put forth for administrator conduct review. Considering the scrutiny you are already under for seeking administrative guidance from an AnonIP with a lengthy sanction history and obvious contention for WP admins - you may wish to consider treading lightly to minimize additional risk to your elevated privileges. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is closed. Do not modify it.