User talk:Icedshakenespresso

Hi Icedshakenespresso. Thank you for your work on Jelena Marjanović. Another editor, Rosiestep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice article. Please translate Serbian language reference titles into English.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Rosiestep}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Rosiestep (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Hi there, thank you. How/where do I translate the references titles? I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Icedshakenespresso. Thanks for your quick response. See my edit on Jelena's page as an example of how/where to add add |trans-title=. For further information/instructions regarding |trans-title=, see here. Keep up the good work! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks has a newsletter again! Called In The Loop, its aim is to bring together the editors of the project, form more of a community, encourage improvement of articles, and recognize the achievements of editors who have made outstanding contributions.

Issues will be published at the end of each quarter for a total of four per year. To stay In The Loop and receive a notice like this one when an issue is released, add your name to the mailing list. Readership will ensure the newsletter continues and fulfils its goals.

If you would like, you can also help write the upcoming issue of the newsletter – learn about how to help.

Below is an overview and link to the first issue of the newsletter. Enjoy!

Image credit

In The Loop – WikiProject Amusement Parks newsletter
In this issue:

WikiProject News

• WikiProject Amusement Parks revival – Project Retrack
• The newsletter is back!
• What's next?

Article News

• Operation B&M
• Featured content
• Goals and statistics

Amusement Industry

• Six Flags Qiddiya City opens its gates
• Ride announcements, ride openings, ride closures
• Six Flags sells 7 parks
• Parks announce major themed areas

Member spotlight

• New members
• Outstanding contributions
• HOW CAN YOU HELP?

Read the newsletter

In The Loop is published by WikiProject Amusement Parks at the end of each quarter for a total of 4 issues per year. To receive a notice like this one when a new issue is released, add your name to the subscriber list. To unsubscribe, remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, Icedshakenespresso – because the Committee only handles cases the community has been unable to resolve, your case request has been declined for now. You might want to see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for a list of steps to try before you get to ArbCom (which almost all disputes never need). Best wishes, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I am still a relatively new editor. May I take this to RfC? Icedshakenespresso (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC is probably also more hassle than you want to go through here; I'd recommend asking for a third opinion first. You can also neutrally notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion if it expands. An RfC would really only be if a lot of people are talking and no one is agreeing; like ArbCom, exhaust all of your other options first. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Rita Hayworth. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I said that was an attack? I thought Wikipedia was dedicated to accuracy, and that's what I'm arguing for. The user in question has been targeting quality work on that page for literal years. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed dedicated to accuracy. Wikipedia is also dedicated to helpful collaboration with other editors. Abhorrent personal attacks such as "What is the reason for your attachment to this piece of virulent disinformation? Is it misogyny? I have to assume as much..." are incompatible with the fundamental values of this website, and I suggest you strike it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how it's an attack, it's an earnest question. Perpetuating racist myths that Rita had to endure during her time in Hollywood decades after her death and defending her ex-husband who treated her poorly in life but couldn't wait to talk to a "biographer to the stars" clearly indicates ulterior motives. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an editor’s conduct, you take it to their talk page (as I am doing now) or the relevant noticeboard. Article talk pages are dedicated to discussing article content. Your attitude seems to verge upon WP:RGW; you should not be concerned with defending or attacking the honour of a long-dead actress who could not care less now, but with neutrally describing what the sources say. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with their conduct, I have a problem with their dedication to perpetuating disinformation.

My attitude is not WP:RGW, just look at the talk page and you can see there has been one single user over the past several years fighting against the truth. This information (her Sephardic heritage) is widely known and there is absolutely nothing controversial about it. This is just a case of laymen wanting to exoticize successful, beautiful women and to stereotype the Romani people without understanding their history or communities.

I'm not concerned with defending her honor, I'm explaining how dispelling decades-old myths takes a disproportionate amount of effort. It's Brandolini's law. These people are literally adhering to 1940s-era racial stereotyping. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

So yes, you have a problem with their conduct, and yes, this is a matter of righting great wrongs for you. Do you mind if I have a look at the content issue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no "wrong" to be righted. Her page is currently as it should be. As long as this user refrains from vandalizing it, I have no problem.

Yes, look at the content issue. Everything is on the talk page. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TagaworShah (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Per consensus of the community at Special:Permalink/1350539245#Proposal: Icedshakenespresso banned from the topic of Rita Hayworth and banned from interacting with TagaworShah. you are now:

• Indefinitely Topic banned from topic of Rita Hayworth, broadly construed. You are forbidden from discussing the topic of Rita Hayworth on any page on Wikipedia. You are also forbidden from making any edits on any pages related to Rita Hayworth. Further, you should not be engaging in any attempts to encourage other people to proxy edit on your behalf on this topic.
• Subject to an indefinite one-way interaction ban with User:TagaworShah. As with the topic ban, you are forbidden from discussing or interacting directly or indirectly with TagaworShah on any page on Wikipedia. This includes any type of reversion of their edits anywhere on the project or any sort of hounding behavior. Even if TagaworShah should mention you, the interaction ban applies. Do not respond to, do not interact with, do not comment on, and do not mention TagaworShah anywhere on Wikipedia.

These bans have been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Icedshakenespresso. Though the discussion did not specify when you might be able to appeal these bans, it is generally a good idea to not attempt an appeal of these bans before six months has elapsed. Instructions for appealing these bans are located at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. Violations of either of these bans can and will result in blocks, possibly scaling up to an indefinite block. Please note that these bans apply to you, not to this specific account. If you attempt to evade these bans via alternate accounts, those accounts will be blocked for ban evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for further information. If you are unclear about the implications of a topic ban and/or an interaction ban, please feel free to ask. Just do not mention Rita Hayworth or TagaworShah in the process of doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean I can't pursue content resolution via a third opinion? I'm genuinely puzzled and hurt by this entire situation and admin's treatment of me. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You should follow the link to WP:TOPICBAN. You cannot pursue any content resolution related to the topic of Rita Hayworth. Until the topic ban is lifted, for all intents and purposes, as far as you're concerned Rita Hayworth does not exist on English Wikipedia. Similarly, you cannot interact with TagaworShah (see WP:IBAN) or any of their edits in any way. The only exception is obvious vandalism (and nothing you've disputed with them would qualify as that) and necessary communication to discuss the ban itself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Icedshakenespresso, if you believe I have mistreated you by applying this topic ban, one-way interaction ban, and final warning on personal attacks and incivility, then you are welcome to raise the issue at WP:AARV. I would caution you however that you will need to be careful about how you lay out your case that I've mistreated you in some way. The discussion to tban/iban you was open for nearly four days. Per WP:CBAN, it is required to be open a minimum of 24 hours. Thus, no fault there. The discussion was unanimous, with no equivocation; everyone agreed to the iban/tban restrictions. Thus, no fault there. You can't say you didn't see the discussion and didn't have a chance to respond, since you did respond directly in that discussion. Thus, no fault there. The iban/tban restrictions were properly logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Icedshakenespresso, thus no fault there. You were properly notified of those restrictions, as noted in this very thread. Thus, no fault there. Unless I'm missing something, I fail to see how the iban/tban could be interpreted as being misapplied in any respect. As for the final warning on the violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, your history of abusing these policies speaks for itself, and I certainly am not the only one that saw it that way (example). As noted in the thread below, the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not negotiable and can not be dismissed. In all of this, I am not in violation of WP:INVOLVED, as you and I have never interacted before in any respect on the project nor did I weigh in with an opinion on the WP:AN/I thread before closing it and applying the bans. Nevertheless, if you think there are grounds for making this not a final warning, despite rampant abuse of these policies, you are more than welcome to state your case at WP:AARV. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a "history" of anything, I'm a new user who got into one dispute. I'm having trouble understanding why only my comments were given a bad faith reading and why misconduct by the accuser was not addressed. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You more than stated your claims about the other editor's conduct. Many experienced, independent editors, with no vested interest in the underlying conduct dispute, reviewed the evidence and came to the identical conclusion that it was your conduct that was repeatedly problematic and antithetical to this collaborative project, and that these were the measures required to protect the project.

It would be in your interest to WP:DROPTHESTICK before you end up with a block that isn't only an infinitesimal sliver of the project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Concur with CoffeeCrumbs. Further, you are not a "new user". You've been here for more than 10 months. Regardless, being new or not, the iban/tbans were properly discussed, reached consensus, and was properly closed. Even if you were a new user, it doesn't excuse your actions. Further, YOUR actions are being discussed, NOT the actions of your "accuser". Lastly, and I need to state this extremely emphatically, your mentioning your "accuser" is an indirect reference to TagaworShah. Per my comments in the beginning of this thread and per WP:IBAN, your indirect reference to TagaworShah is a blatant, bright-line breach of your one-way interaction ban with TagaworShah. You could have been blocked for it right now. Any more violations of this interaction ban WILL result in a site wide block of your editing privileges. If it's me that does it, the first one will be some what short. Other administrators might view your insistence on not dropping the stick, as CoffeeCrumbs noted, and apply a significantly longer block or even an indefinite block. You've been properly warned, you've been linked to WP:IBAN many times, and it was explained to you above. Do not violate the interaction ban. Again, do not respond to, do not interact with, do not comment on, and do not mention TagaworShah anywhere on Wikipedia. DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. Clear? If not, by all means then ask questions, but do not mention TagaworShah directly or indirectly. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Just because my account was made 10 months ago doesn't mean I'm not a novice user. I have ~ 400 edits. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether you're best described as a novice user, a new user, or an experienced user is immaterial here. You're not partially banned because you fell afoul of some arcane Wikipedia rule or tricky technical violation, you're partially banned because of incivility and personal attacks. Remaining civil and not attacking others is a basic human interaction thing, and presumably you've been a human interacting with other humans for considerably more than 10 months. This is an extremely narrow ban, and there could very easily have been support for something far more restrictive. You should move on and edit about some of the other seven million topics on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have moved on, I'm just replying to the comments on my talk page. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Any future claims that you are not personally attacking someone as "X" but that their opinions are rooted in "X" as exemplified here and here will result in you receiving an indefinite block from the site. Such explanations of your behavior ring absolutely hollow. Our Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies are not negotiable, and can not be dismissed. Consider this a final warning in regards to your personal attacks. This behavior from you will stop with immediate effect either by you stopping it or it being stopped for you by way of an indefinite block. If you have questions about this, then by all means ask. Continuing as you have been is not acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What is this referring to? I haven't posted in several days. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's referring specifically to the examples I noted, and repeated attempts to refer to people as misogynistic and racist. Continue such behavior or any other behavior that violates WP:NPA and/or WP:CIVIL and you will be indefinitely blocked. Your personal attacks and violations of WP:CIVIL ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I hadn't posted in several days. It's been over. Icedshakenespresso (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to hear it. The warning stands however, and if such behavior resumes you can expect to be indefinitely blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)