User talk:Vanished user 9019836593

Welcome!

Hello, Cmonghost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7^talk 20:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

nuff said

I am not going to say much publicly, obviously, but I think you should remember that I've been around for almost 15 years, I am a high profile target, and this is not my first rodeo. Give it time ... for the innocent people caught in the midst, I put some information on my user and talk page that may or may not help. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, although I'm interpreting the tone as vaguely threatening (if that's not intended, I'd appreciate a clarification!). Are you trying to accuse me of targeting you or something? I'm not sure how else to interpret the "high profile target" remark. I'd really appreciate an explanation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No !!! Not at all !!! Darn it, not at all. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I can't say more. Sorry ... I did not mean to leave you that impression. Just saying that the Reddit factor will ... continue. Darn it. Re-reading my post I can see how it came across that way, and I am so sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Good morning; I am still mortified about this, and hope you have recovered from the unpleasant fright. I am feeling a little more ready to deal with what is happening; the last few days have been gut-wrenching. I thought that my "best regards" sign off above indicated the tone and friendliness, but after the fact, I realized how creepy the whole post read. I was trying to tell you that, because I have been a high profile editor for many years, and I have long been a target, and these people are fond of getting nasty scoop on high profile editors, that the situation is a bit more complex than you may realize. That's all I meant about "not my first rodeo". My apologies again for such a misunderstanding. So you are a linguist :) While my language is often imprecise. I have to re-type things ten times to get it right, and I didn't take enough care here. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

PS, on the linguist topic, you may have the knowledge to help me. The idea that other Wikis handle the Guaido article better has been brought to the bias discussion, with five examples given (French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian and Turkish). The representation made on the French and Spanish just isn't true. For example, the Spanish article is an outdated, poorly edited translation of some version of the English article. The French article is barely there.

I have no idea how to go about analyzing the Chinese, Russian and Turkish, or even figuring out what sources they use, or if the claim about their lack of bias is true. I am not fluent in translation tools because I don't need to be for my Spanish-language work. But I looked at the Russian article, and it's only got 15 sources (????), so it seems to be an undeveloped article, and I can't determine the quality of sourcing. Are you able to lend any tools or help in this? It looks like Tornheim is sending me on a wild goose chase based on what I've found so far, and without sources, I don't know how to satisfy him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately you would likely need input from someone who knows Chinese, Russian or Turkish in order to get an accurate translation of the content there (especially regarding slant/bias). You can often use Google Translate to get the gist of the article if you paste the URL into the text-to-be-translated box. I just wouldn't put much faith in the results—machine translation tools like that just aren't really there yet. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey; I just wanted to pass by and recognize that I feel that discussions with you have run more smoothly than with other editors with different positions in the past. Many thanks, I feel that it is increasingly important in Venezuela topics. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

For anyone else reading my talk page, I want to note here that the investigation into this unevidenced accusation was closed on 30 June 2019 and I was not found to be a sockpuppet of "Apollo the Logician" or anyone else. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jamez42 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks for the notice. I responded to the part of your spurious allegation that actually had to do with alleged sockpuppetry on the investigation page. However, you also accuse me of having a "pro-government" POV without substantiating that claim at all, no doubt because there is no evidence that I have such a POV, only that I am in favour of accurately reflecting the content of reliable sources. Rather than attempting to tar me with the brush of a blocked editor I've never heard of, I think your time would be better spent engaging in good-faith discussion on the articles in question; perhaps you should also reflect on your own reasons for misinterpreting my concern for accuracy and WP:NPOV as a "pro-government POV". — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I thank you once again for your civility that I consider that characterizes you. I want to assure you that the request for investigation was not opened in any way to "tar you with the brush of a blocked editor", but ultimately was the decision after considering several factors, all of which have been listed in the request. If I may be honest, I was indecisive to use either the word "anti-opposition" or "pro-government", but decided on the latter after looking after several edits ([1][2][3][4][5], to mention some). I acknowledge that there's currently a thin line between what's pro-government or pro-opposition with the current polarization, but I tried to focus this evaluation based on previous investigation requests. To put an example, I was also skeptic on using the term "weasel wording", but once again I opted to focus only in the edits in question. I hope that this investigation does not hinder the discussions that have taken place so far. Best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Your addition to 2019 Bolivian political crisis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

The violation occurred with your edit with text from this article. This may be accidental, though please be careful.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Thanks for the notice. I reworded the text so that the paraphrase is less close. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Thought you may be interested in this following your recent edits. I want to make sure that there is an accurate consensus with such a decision.

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt at Wikipedia:Canvassing, only a notification for a user who may be interested. This is action is being performed to broaden the consensus.

Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

coup d etat in Bolivia

Hallo Cmonghost. I m currently trying to make changes in the article " 2019 political crisis in Bolivia" and try to find a solution that will not be rejected. Maybe you want to take once more part in it. thanks Yomomo (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ghost, I hope you don't mind me coming here to tell Yomomo that comments like this are called WP:CANVASSING and are very much disliked on Wikipedia. To explain: Yomomo is using a deductive argument of historical sources variously defining the terms coup and putsch to push their singular view that the 2019 Bolivian political crisis article must be changed no matter what. This is not how things are done. Yomomo is an SPA with poor and disruptive edits. Being pushed back based on policy and warned against disruptive editing, they have clearly seen Cmonghost's contributions in favor of the 'coup' title and come here to persuade ghost to support them. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I don't mind.

@Yomomo: As I said in the relevant discussion, I agree that the correct title for the article is "coup d'état". However, we've already had a discussion about it on the talk page and I don't think it's going to go anywhere at this point, unfortunately, especially if you engage in move-warring, disruptive editing, and so on, which will likely get you blocked. The best thing to do, IMO, is wait to see how the situation develops and proceed from there. In cases where the US is in favour of a coup, mainstream sources often refrain from calling it what it is because they receive flak from government sources, etc (propaganda model). Later coverage, and scholarly work will likely have a different perspective and we can then revisit the issue. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello talk:Cmonghost , may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, 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 2020. Happy editing, We may have had our disagreements before and we may continue having them in the future, but I admit that, at the end, you have helped Wikipedia to be a better place. I thought this was the best moment more than other to leave this message. Happy holidays and best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Thanks, I appreciate that. Happy new year and best wishes to you as well. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Regime change stuff

Thanks for your work ^there. FYI. I'm done restoring things. I might not have gotten everything important. Too tired to continue on that. I know I didn't get all the "orchestrated" back. Not sure if all of the original use of "orchestrated" deserve to be put back or not. I know the Iran one was orchestrated. If you feel it's not right to put this comment here, let me know & I will move it to the talk page of one of the articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC) Not sure how to get this out of the Christmas card. LOL. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks for all your work as well! — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are mentioned...

FYI. I mentioned and quoted you here: WP:AN/I#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Jamez42 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the article regarding Santa Claus

Please see: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article. Félix An (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cavetown (musician) on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of LGBT slang terms on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Cmonghost! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|Cmonghost|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)