User talk:GreatCaesarsGhost

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toning down the temperature

I am honestly still a bit confused and surprised that you view my statement that systemic bias is an uncomfortable reality as a targeted personal attack, when you nor any other specific editor was mentioned or criticized in any way.

I do not take public allegations that I have breached Wikipedia policies lightly, and I think making a serious accusation against me of that nature on an ITN thread isn’t really productive or helpful. I’d ask we sort things out here, as opposed to derailing that nomination. I’m happy to hear you out if you thought my vote rational was disrespectful to you in any way. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 19:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The term “everyone in the room” is a figure of speech which is referring to the Wikipedia community in general, FYI… Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 19:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to sort out - your comment speaks for itself. You may chose to vote with whatever rationale you like, but you will do so without calling opposing arguments "nonsense" and making baseless accusations at other editors. I would advise that you take your own advice and tone down the temperature or corrective action will be taken. Good day. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I quite literally, and objectively, did not accuse any editors of anything. You nor any other editor was mentioned in my comment. The only one making a baseless accusation is you. The passive aggressive comments, veiled threats, and intimidation tactics are completely uncalled for. Please do not interact with me in this manner again. I hope we can return to having productive conversations in the future, as I value your contributions to ITN as a fellow longtime contributor. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to cite a specific editor for your behavior to violate CIVILITY. Also, reminding you of policy is not a "threat" veiled or otherwise. Enforcement of policy vios is done by the community- I am in no position to unilaterally sanction you. Again, I would encourage you to read the policies you cite, because you clearly do not understand them. Further, I will choose how I interact with you on my own talk page. You came here to try and intimidate me and I'm not interested in playing your game. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You warned me not to rely on certain policies in my !vote rationale or to use the term "nonsense" or else corrective action will be taken against me. That could be a textbook definition of a veiled, intimidatory threat.

If you think my original comment egregiously violated WP:CIVILITY, then by all means, have take it to ANI or report it to an administrator (since we're linking policies to read, just be sure to also check out WP:BOOMERANG). I reiterate that it is inappropriate to continue insulting me, making condescending comments about how I don't know how to read (which, unlike using the word "nonsense", is an actual WP:CIVILITY violation), or to threaten to unilaterally arrange for "action" to be taken against me. Please stop that. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 01:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment was that you failed to understand the policy and essays you were citing. In your objection to this point, you have misinterpreted my comments at least five additional times (in addition to misattributing an essay as a policy). I did not say or imply that:

you don't know how to read. On the contrary, I encouraged you to reread to improve your understanding.
your "statement that systemic bias is an uncomfortable reality" was a personal attack. The personal attack was referring to specific editors' comments as nonsense.
your original civility vio was "egregious." I only said you should "refrain from making personal attacks and assume good faith"
you would be subject to corrective action for relying "on certain policies in my !vote rationale". The corrective action would be for the personal attacks.
I would "unilaterally arrange for action to be taken against" you. You even made this point after I clarified that "Enforcement of policy vios is done by the community." The sole comment I made on this subject was "tone down the temperature or corrective action will be taken."

My original statement stands: you are violating the civility policy with your comments at ITNC, and you should refrain from doing so further. You have made clear you disagree, in which case there is nothing you need to do. In either case, there is nothing more to discuss. Kindly refrain from any further comment on my page. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May music

Thank you for your support for Felicity Lott, - my story today, listen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]