User talk:Titus Gold: Difference between revisions

Hello, Titus Gold. Thank you for your work on Basque autonomy. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 22:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Titus Gold (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Titus Gold. Thank you for your work on Corsican autonomy. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Titus Gold,

Thank you for creating New Ireland Commission.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi, Titus Gold, a good start here. In my opinion, the article would benefit from inclusion in additional appropriate categories, and with additional wikilinks - e.g., it is odd that unionism isn't linked. Additional reliable secondary sources would be most welcome, aside from those from the SDLP, Colum Eastwood or the commission itself.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated assessment for the Aberffraw article. However, I made a request in October : Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment, so can you please complete the process and mark it as done? Cltjames (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail @DeCausa @Sirfurboy @Extraordinary Writ @Tony Holkham @Velella @Rosbif73 @Cullen328 @Buidhe @Johnbod @JML1148 @Chipmunkdavis @NebY @Llwyld @Johnbod @KJP1@SovalValtos (tagging those some of those who previously commented on relevant discussions)

Hello, as part of the only guidance I could find on a resolution of a topic ban, Wikipedia: Topic ban essay, I understand that "Most topic bans are in effect for a certain timeframe after which they are automatically lifted. In the case of indefinite topic bans, conditions should be given by which the user can demonstrate rehabilitation and a return to normal editing."

Would it be possible to outline conditions so that I can potentially return to some editing on Wales-related topics (or initially move to a ban from certain pages only for a trial period for example) please? Alternatively, would it be fair for me to appeal the topic ban, at least in part?

Thank you. Titus Gold (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Just for full disclosure; after reviewing recent edits; I recently made an innocent edit on Joe Cordina. Not sure how I managed that but I think I must've thought I was either on the Anthony Cacace article whilst having multiple windows open/possibly switching between the Welsh Wicipedia/or briefly forgot about the topic ban! Honest mistake which I've since reverted.) Titus Gold (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you don't archive your talk page, it is difficult to go back a year to the original ban and look at discussions about it, before, during and after, but I see no reason why you shouldn't appeal to have the ban lifted if you believe the reasons for the ban will not reoccur. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Topic ban essay is obsolete, untouched since 2012; Wikipedia:Banning policy is current. This is the permalink to your ban, as listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. It is up to you to appeal, explaining to the community - not a pinged group on your talk page - why that ban should be lifted or modified; see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans (WP:UNBAN). NebY (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, it's not unreasonable to get input from those originally involved in the TBAN before applying. What's unreasonable, or perhaps unrealistic is a better word, is to expect other volunteers to spend time and effort crafting a way out of the TBAN for him. TG: I would suggest you open a new thread on this page - add a link to the original ANI discussion so people can remind themselves of the issues and suggest what you will be doing to show that you have changed from the specifics that others have said about you. People could then comment on whether they think that's enough or on the right track. To be honest, I have my doubts. This interaction we had a few weeks ago seemed very much the old TG. I think some had previously identified WP:CPUSH as a problem. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for input. Just thought I would ask to see if it would be realistic. (@DeCausajust replied to the interaction; I didn't recall that there had been an RFC). Titus Gold (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being informed of this but I have no idea whether the problems that led to the topic ban would reoccur if it were lifted. (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I am obviously planning on completely avoiding any problems but in theory, if any consistent problems did come up then the ban could just be reinforced. Obviously I'll aim to ensure that won't be necessary! Titus Gold (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TG, I note that many of your edits since the TBAN was imposed have related to the nationalist movements of other Celtic nations – an area with high potential for POV pushing. I haven't scrutinised these edits particularly, but if you appeal the ban, others will definitely do so. If there have been interactions with other editors that demonstrate you have changed your approach, you would be well advised to include some diffs in your appeal rationale. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. By "diffs" in rationale, do you mean that I provide different reasons in my rationale? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that you should link to specific edits or specific revisions of talk pages where such interactions occur. See Help:Diff § Linking to a diff. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An appeal has been raised on ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal to conclude topic ban if anyone is unaware. (I will participate this time). DankJae 14:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... having allowed less than 6 hours for replies from pinged users, failing to take much heed of the replies already received, and without leaving a note here that the appeal had been filed. Not a promising start. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And see my post at the AN appeal thread here. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]