This is for your activity in the Teahouse. For a new editor, you are really focused on helping others, and I admire that a lot! I hope that you stick around, have this as a reward for your kindness. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk)(Contributions) 08:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! I've spent ample time on the front end of Wikipedia over the years, so I find I'm learning the most right now by poking around backstage. Lots to learn from other newbies asking questions! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
I've spent ample time on the front end of Wikipedia over the years
but your account is 1 day old? ltbdl (kiss) 09:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
As in reading it, which does not require an account. Hence why I am now learning about "backstage" - everything that makes said front end work. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
i see. well, welcome to wikipedia, and i hope you enjoy your time here. ltbdl (click) 10:00, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
@ChompyTheGogoat: I apologise for my late response (there was a power-outage where I live) but what you described reminds me of...well me! I spent a lot of time reading Wikipedia before making an account, I don't remember what rule/policy I stumbled across while checking page histories, but I do remember that when I found that policy, I went into a rabbithole and read pretty much any policy, guideline, or essay that I could find. Obviously, I haven't read everything but, I tried my best to gather as much information as I could to help for when I eventually decided to make an account. But yeah, I hope you stick around! Wikipedia is a community as well as an encyclopedia, remember that. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk)(Contributions) 11:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
That's more or less how it went, just more gradually - sometime in the last couple years there was some push that led to lots of flags on articles so I started reading up on why they'd been posted, and left a talk note once or twice suggesting minor changes that I didn't want to attempt myself because I was afraid of breaking the entire world. The error in the article from the other day was SO minor that I felt like I could probably manage to adjust a few words without ruining it, and after doing so as a temp it prompted me to create an account, so 🤷♀️ ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably should have phrased my question more clearly - I was concerned the photo might have been inappropriately modified, not just "why is this weird". Finding out it was just a prosthetic cleared things up. Still odd to run across in the middle of the article without explanation, but it is in character. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a disagreement over content with which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Culpeper".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
[Academic Research] Seeking X’s Community Notes Contributors for a study on Crowdsourced Moderation
Hi everyone, I posted my message in Wikipedia Teahouse, and they suggested I reach out to you here.
I am a PhD candidate at Université Paris-Saclay (France) researching crowdsourced countermeasures against misinformation on social media.
I am currently studying the contributor experience within X’s Community Notes. The goal is to identify what drives long-term engagement and, more importantly, the barriers and frustrations that leads to contributor churn.
If you are a current or former contributor:
Please share your experience! I have designed a 5-7-minute anonymous survey to collect empirical data on the rater's experience.
Here is the link to the survey: hub.imt-atlantique.fr/limesurvey/index.php/465746?lang=en
If you are not a contributor:
You can still help me by sharing this survey with your colleagues and broader network!
I will also be glad if you have any suggestions regarding sharing channels. Please share them by replying to my message or by contacting me.
The findings will be used to propose improvements for collaborative moderation systems!
Once the study is complete, I will be happy to share a summary of the results of the study and the benefits/limitations of the community notes system in the dedicated Wikipedia page, for instance:)
Thanks for your time!
Best,
Marion Seigneurin PhD Candidate | LITEM Lab Imtups92 (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
No, I did not. I said you should post on X if you are looking for contributors to X. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh sorry I am very new to Wikipedia channels and I thought ChompyTheGogoat was an indicated channel. I went to X but they are quite complex to reach:) Imtups92 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
@Imtups92 I'm not on X but I'm pretty sure you can just make an account and post there.
We don't have channels here - we have public notice boards, like Teahouse, plus individual talk pages for users or articles. All of which are publicly visible. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Hi there, ChompyTheGogoat, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When you feel ready to create your first biography, you'll find guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi there! So, after all that discussion, the topic was closed and nothing happened. It said their was no vote. I'm so confused! Do you have any idea what happened and/or what can be done? Or even who I can ask about it? CanelaQuill (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you link me to the thread? It's my understanding that the editor who proposes a move is automatically considered to be a !vote in favor, which is potentially enough support if there's no indication anyone else disagrees - and on the primary thread there was at least the two of us in favor. IIRC the others who chimed in were either in agreement or neutral. I tried to make sure all of the proposals linked to that one so discussions wouldn't be split across multiple pages, but maybe someone missed that? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I dropped a note on the closer's TP. I think maybe they just skimmed it and didn't see clear !votes. It didn't seem controversial in the first place, so I don't think there should be any issue. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Sadly, still no change. CanelaQuill (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't look like they've been active since I left that. I'll give it a bit longer, then see about asking elsewhere if they don't turn up. I honestly doubt there would be any issue if we just did a WP:BOLD move, but there's still the redirects to deal with. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm fine waiting a few more days. As for redirects, does that mean manually changing links within pages? That would be a drag, but also good practice for me, I guess.:) CanelaQuill (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't even think of that part. I just mean the current situation with the Tetun pages redirecting to Tetum, which will need to be reversed. I think there might be a tool to help identify in article links that need to be changed, but not sure where or how it works. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Pregap sample question
Hello sorry for the second ping on this topic. The RFC from a few weeks ago that you provided a neutral third opinion on has closed with consensus on the inclusion of the pregap's description, but two editors being for inclusion of the sample and two against. Could I ask that you please check out the other points raised by Pingnova on Talk:Act III: This City Made Us and weigh in on if you think it's justified? It's no worry if you are still unconvinced, my hope though is someone else will be able to weigh in as a 'tie-breaker' in that instance. All the best, thank you for your consideration. PBugaboo (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC) PBugaboo (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Agaricus deardorffensis has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is common for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello, ChompyTheGogoat. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Hey Chompy, I know you! I was thinking that your name looks familiar just now, and realized that you were there to support me at ZoomInfo's page. I'm happy to see you decided to stay, and, congrats on your new tool (TAIV)!
Happy thousandth, Chompy; here's looking forward to the 10,000th and 100,00th! SnowRise let's rap 06:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Happy 1000th. Somehow I only today read your name for the first time properly, my brain smoothed over it as ChompyTheGoat for the first 1000. CMD (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
As does my own on a not-infrequent basis. I would have preferred to stylize it GoGoat, but stuck with MOS:CAPS per sources, alas. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines. WP:USERNAME also prohibits names that are deliberately deceptive, confusing, [or] misleading
you asked "The "associated IP" box doesn't require TAIV, right?", i can confirm that i can see the "associated IP" box as an TA (i can't see it if i switch to private browsing/incognito/another browser where i'm not a TA and not logged in)
i created a throwaway TA to see if maybe there's an editing requirements for TAs to see that box, but no, it requires me to have a TA or (presumably) being logged in ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
I added three sources and filled in the lead, and deprodded your prod. Bearian (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Are you also going to do that for every single year in history - because apparently we need articles for all of them, for some reason? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
It depends.™ Sometimes a specific year / number get their own articles because we have enough stuff to say about it to fill an article, such as the case for 1024 (number), while 1023 and '25 don't get the same treatment. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
See List of years in philosophy. Someone went around mass-creating a heap of listicles (many unsourced) that don't meet WP:NLIST standards: A list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. See also WP:TOOSPECIFIC: A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out. All of the sources I have seen (including the ones added for this article) only prove that the items listed exist. Per the talk page for the above set index, they've previously been nominated for deletion with no consensus, and a subsequent attempt at reorganization appears to have been abandoned. All of which I realized after PRODing the first article, so it looks like another group nom is in order. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Off topic, but 2,147,483,647 is also an article. This number equals to 2 to the power of 31 and minus 1. The number looks comically absurd, but somehow, modern computers can't live without it. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
*Considers early retirement*ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
I love it when dudes like these get dunked on here. Makes me feel like our work is meaningful. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 09:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi! I am contacting you to request assistance with some of the recent revision requests on the ZoomInfo page (found in the Talk section). The most active editor on that page acknowledged them but indicated that they are not interested in reviewing them at this time. This is somewhat concerning to me because this editor also disclosed a strong bias against the topic of the page in a previous comment. I appreciate any help you can provide. I am trying to be as respectful and understanding of this process as possible. ~2026-42346-67 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Though editors are under no obligation to respond to requests (including denying and going through the arguments to provide a reasoning), so please be very patient.
The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!
This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!
Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
"Spanish goats" listed at Redirects for discussion
Hello, ChompyTheGogoat. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 10:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Savanna goat has been accepted
Savanna goat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
No, they do not, because no such policies exist. Those are guidelines subject to editor interpretation, which you're perfectly well aware of - just like you're perfectly aware that dropping this template instead of participating in an active discussion where you've been invited to multiple times is wholly inappropriate. WP:Communication is required, and edit warring your preferred version through does not replace it nor magically create consensus. If you don't want to discuss it on the article in question we can do so at ANI instead. I'm sure they'd be interest to hear about how you've been chasing numerous editors off entire topic areas for years. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 03:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
You mean the one where I adjusted the sourcing you changed for no reason and didn't add back my links while this discussion is ongoing, even though I'm the only one who's actually attempted to discuss my changes instead of just reverting to my preferred version repeatedly? ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 10:31, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, your cited WP:CITEVAR states Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. The article didn't have an established citation style before I started working on it - it had a total of two sources and one of them was dead. Now they're all consistent, using the template format that many citation tools run on. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 10:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I do find templated refs easier to check and follow. Probably slightly easier to maintain with script (e.g., formatted data), too. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 11:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I use ProveIt and IAbot as well as the built in citation tool - all three of which I've used on that page. Templates wrapped in a reflist are cleaner and provide better options for maintenance, IMHO. (I meant to do that on my last article but forgot how - fixed it now!) But it's not as if I'm going around making large scale changes on well established articles. 3/4 of the sources on this page are ones I added myself. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 11:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I also just fixed another where part of the content accidentally got wrapped in the ref tags. Can't do that if they're all contained within the list! I've always loved Wikipedia's superscript citations for a cleaner reading experience, and this helps keep the editing experience closer to that while minimizing mistakes. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 11:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Alak LTA
Hi there, for the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alakmarsaify page, I can't seem to get Examples 1 & 2 for the Teahouse behaviour to work for me. Example 3 works perfectly but the other 2 don't seem to link to an Alak edit when I click them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Ugh. My phone was NOT cooperating, but those are the diffslinks it gave me - I checked twice. The one you just tried to fix for the deletion discussion is how I formatted it originally and it doesn't work that way either. I don't know what's going on. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 18:56, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Do my examples work for you? I copied the format from the Timelash LTA page. I am editing from a PC so it's probably a different version of Wikipedia. Interestingly, your example 3 was a 'special:diff' which works fine. The other two are 'special:permanentlink' and they don't go anywhere for me. Very unusual. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I just replaced them with normal links which seem to work. I don't understand why the permas don't. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 19:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
As Teahouse archives will probably not get deleted, we're safe to go with normal links. They worked fine for me now. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I just grab permalinks by default. It's never been an issue before. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 19:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
I'm wrong - the deletion link is fine. I need sleep. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 19:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
No worries, it's been a tough day. Hopefully our work will be significant in reducing the UPE that's been a problem for so long. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
You can tone down your attitude
You can tone down your attitude with me. I am not a MAGA or a Trumpite, so you can shove your insinuations that you left on my talk page. Those pages are in DRAFT space. Since you haven't been around all that long, your account created December 27, 2025, perhaps you don't realize that the rules are a bit looser in draft space. The initial references are place holder's until better sources are found. I have created probably over 1,000 Federal Judgeship articles under several Presidents. And I don't edit logged out, so that insinuation of yours is a lie. I don't know what the hell your problem is, but knock it off. Safiel (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
If you'd like to have a checkuser investigate the blatant overlap between the accounts we can go that route instead. I assumed good faith that it was a mistake, which isn't uncommon.Using unreliable sources as "placeholder" citations serves no purpose. You can insert {{citation needed}} instead - or, preferably, find sources before adding content to avoid writing WP:BACKWARDS articles. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 05:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
As an aside, I didn't notice the account age/edit count since I came from the TA first, or I would have written a custom message instead of templating. Sorry about that part. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 05:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Lulik ill
Hi ChompyTheGogoat, your ill on Tetun people does not work. If you do not specific the other wiki title, it links to the same title, in this case with the disambiguation. You need to add the de.wiki title at the end of the template.
On an aside, if you have an interest in Timor-Leste articles, please consider preparing a new article for publication around late March or early April next year for a DYK set in May. Alternatively or additionally, if you know of any prospective Featured lists or Features pictures, that would also be great. Best, CMD (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for catching that! Fixed.I don't have any subject matter knowledge; I just helped with the page moves before so I've been gnoming a bit. Maybe @CanelaQuill would be interested? ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Rollback granted
Hi ChompyTheGogoat. After reviewing your request, I have enabledrollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback §When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! CoconutOctopustalk 20:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! For clarification - if a blocked user evades their block to continue a previous edit war, that behavior would now constitute vandalism rather than just a content dispute and would be a justified use, correct? I figure we're past good faith by that point. For anything that hasn't already gone through dispute resolution and sanctions I always discuss on talk and use manual undo (usually custom adjustments to content trying to find a compromise instead of full revert). ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 20:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Re: your recent report
I went through a few hundred of their contribs. I think you're probably right about it. Sad and disappointing. — DVRTed (Talk) 00:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah. Caught by chance - one of the scripts popped on RCP. I really wanted it to be a coincidence:/ ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 00:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Question for ChompyTheGogoat
Can I changed the new flag of Vaucluse department? GaspaCapital (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source to prove it's official. The image came from fandom.com, which falls under WP: USERGENERATED. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 07:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
It's on Vexillology Wiki GaspaCapital (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
vexillology.fandom.comOther wikis are not reliable sources. Even Wikipedia itself may not be used as a source, except in very limited circumstances. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 07:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
it's by .webp GaspaCapital (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
FYI this is a sock. France flags in particular are a constant mess. CMD (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw the subsequent glock. Commons is on it. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 11:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
François Letexier's page
I am trying to protect François Letexier page. Nobody is listening to me! That information of Argentina vs Egypt on top side of Letexier's page briefly identify the topic. It is just a event. Top side of the page only need the details of who they are and why they are notable, not what they were famous for. Can you help me?
Regardless of the content, continuing to try to force your preferred version of an article through is called edit warring and may lead to being blocked. The correct procedure is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 10:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
Because that isn't how Wikipedia works. We aren't here to serve the interests of individuals or their fans. We present a neutral summary of events as written by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Disputes are settled via consensus between editors. If consensus is against you that's that. Given how many editors have had eyes on that page since this section was added - including some with extensive experience - I don't think you're going to get your way. Best to accept it and move on. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 04:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
removal of edits to brighton gs wikipedia page
hello,
i noticed that you recently reversed the edits that i made to the wikipedia page of brighton grammar school, citing bias.
the edits were exclusively placed in the section of the article explicitly titled 'historical allegations and cases', and what i wrote dealt with
1. direct quotations from the school/people involved with the school; the stuff said or done which resulted in controversy
2. what the media/public response was
3. if applicable, whether it was a decided case, a mere allegation, an ongoing legal pursuit, or a generic issue
i mentioned various cases of genuine significance to the history and culture of the school that resulted tangibly in media attention and public criticism.
for instance, the section on the campus' poor safety conditions was simply delving into greater depth on a point (industrial toxins in the soil under the campus) already mentioned toward the start of the article. other edits dealt with providing additional information as to the sexual abuse-adjacent cases, which i believe that the original form of the article portrayed with bias: an intent to undermine the significance of the events so as to support the reputation of the school. the points on misogyny culture, poor student behaviour, and the school's anti-bullying incident are simply organising and representing established and widely abhorred failings of the school, its students, and its administration.
thus, i do not believe that your decision to delete all of my contributions to the article under the guise of preserving 'neutrality' was justified; simply that all of the contributions were of a negative nature or portrayed the school in a negative light was a consequence of the substance of the reported instances, and not the wording with which i chose to frame them. ~2026-48465-58 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
The edit seems fine, details may be leaning on the excessive side. We patrollers tend to fall into prejudice when checking edits that are labeled as problematic, and this might be a case of that, (unless I am missing something here).
All in all, I think your revert back is probably fine.
The wording is precisely the problem. Some of the information probably is useful for the article, but we need to be careful how we approach such issues. There were some inappropriate piped links as well. I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page so you can get input from other editors on the best way to handle it. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 13:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
My revert
My revert here should've caused an edit conflict with your simultaneous revert, but for some reason MediaWiki didn't feel the need to stop me. It now records me as reverting you as well as the vandal we were both removing. My apologies for it looking like I was reverting you. I was not! • afranticturtle🐢 solidarity 16:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that and assumed as much. The timestamp and summary made it clear what happened. No worries. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 01:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ChompyTheGogoat. I'm notifying you on behalf of RavishJagarlamudi, as they did not do so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
The redirect Spanish goats has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 23 § Spanish goats until a consensus is reached. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
