User talk:Katzrockso

Katzrockso, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Katzrockso! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

AbortionLawsMap

Please check your edits.[1] You broke {{AbortionLawsMap}}. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding

When you deprod an article, it is best practice to add at least one source. Thank you for your time. Bearian (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:DEPROD for additional recommended steps to take when you deprod an article. Thanks. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks to you both, but I did read that article before deprod-ing (? if that's a word), and it clearly states they are "encouraged, but not required". Katzrockso (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, they are encouraged but not required. Adding the old prod tag at least will attempt to prevent another editor from reprodding an article, as we've just seen happen with Big Bang (British band). Regardless, someone (like myself) will usually end up sorting everything out anyways. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I ever

Please do not restore unsourced content to an article. All content in an article should be sourced.

Also, lists of random occurrences of things are frowned upon; please read WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous/interim editing

Katzrockso, have you ever edited Wikipedia using a different username? Many of your edits starting recently after a several years long break were quite unusual, showing familiarity with AFD procedures. Can you disclose your previous editing history here? Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for asking. I have never edited Wikipedia under another username. I read the policies, guidelines and previous policy discussions (including prior RfC, talk page discussions) thoroughly before engaging in any AfD discourse. Katzrockso (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify that I did incidentally edit as an IP user (mostly several years ago), but it was incidental and I do not know which IP it would have been. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One time

I'm answering here because I've answered this question 136 times already. I was trying to help an admin who was as overwhelmed by another admin who'd prodded too many articles at the same time. The issue has been resolved. I have been trout-slapped by several admins. Go back to what you were doing. It's fixed. Bearian (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I should have read more context. Thanks for the explanation Katzrockso (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the third-party opinion request, it's always good to see editors getting involved in dispute-resolution processes. I'd recommend reviewing WP:3O and WP:DRN to get a clearer sense of how third-party opinions are expected to be structured and supported. Understanding the process a bit more before commenting can help ensure your input is as helpful and policy based as possible in future discussions.

Appreciate your willingness to participate and hope to see you continue contributing constructively! Nemov (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nemov. I have read the 3O page completely before I provided an opinion. Is there a specific policy or guideline that explains the requirements for a third opinion? Thanks Katzrockso (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a 3rd opinion that is provided in the documentation for subst:3OR is:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Matrix (film) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Please see the guidance of WP:CITE which comprehensibly covers this issue.

Katzrockso (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3PO

@Katzrockso You haven't given a third opinion. Telling two editors to consult MOS:BIOALTNAME isn't sufficient. Nemov (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nemov, thanks for the reply. This is my first time providing a third opinion so I am sure I could be wrong, but I read the example from the 3OR template which gives an example on a citation to a guideline. It is my opinion that the editors should consult the manual of style and apply it to this article - I am not familiar with the person in question so I would not be able to apply the guideline myself. If that is not appropriate, please explain. Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't offer an opinion on this dispute then I'd recommend adding it back to the noticeboard. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide what I consider an opinion - that the editors should consult the manual of style and apply the guideline to the article. Katzrockso (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Please do not edit or move my comments. Nemov (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk page comments

Per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, it is appropriate to move off-topic discussions between two editors to the user page of one of those editors. It is also known as "refactoring" WP:RTP. It is not correct to say it is "never" appropriate to remove another's editors comments. I did not "remove" them, I moved them to what I believed was more appropriate location. However, since you object to the refactoring, per the guidelines I will not try it again. Katzrockso (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve my comment, I will add it to my own comment page since you removed it from yours. @Nemov Katzrockso

Reversion of Judaism_and_Rastafari

Hello Katzrockso, did you happen to review the talk page for Judaism_and_Rastafari before you reverted the deletion proposal? It really feels like you interloped in removing the proposal with no solid research or explanation. The problem with the page is not that the information therein is lacking citation or the content improved. The premise of the article is fanciful, which is why it cannot be made into a quality page. I have challenged that premise in the Talk page since March 2024. In that time, the only addition to that talk page has been another call for deletion. It is unfortunate that now another proposal cannot be done, this page will not be fixed, and Wikipedians will be saddled with this misinformation. Jyg (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jyg, I did review the talk page and researched the topic before I reverted the deletion proposal. I thought that it was not a good idea to delete the article because the topic is notable. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Unfortunately, not having citations or accurate content is not a valid deletion reason under WP:DEL-REASON, because these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be fixed, even if not soon, then eventually because there is no WP:DEADLINE. If you think the content in the article is inaccurate, feel free to selectively remove inaccurate content or provide sources that demonstrate that the current information is incorrect. Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

Diff FYI, that bsn tag was not added by me, but by Altenmann. Andre🚐 22:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I only saw the one edit on my watchlist and didn't realize there had been a number. I appreciate you adding more information about the scientific material contradicting the theory. Katzrockso (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and no need to apologize. Just don't forget to check the article history. I restored a {{bsn}} tag with a different reason and combined the two parts cited to Yglesias. Yglesias is a columnist so we should not be relying on him for a review of literature or determining which experts need to be used. We should find a better source for the underlying point being made. That might entail reworking the text or removing portions of it. Andre🚐 23:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary warning

Just in case you don't visit my talkpage again, here is my response to your unnecessary and unwarranted warning.

Canvassing, yes. Partisan, not in the slightest. I believe I asked eight of those users who have participated in various longevity AFDs and who have a significant amount of edits/contribution. Bearian, 4meter4 and Nnev66 for example are pro keep/merge in the last 2-3 supercentenarian AFDs and yourself and PrezDough have already commented, otherwise you would have also received messages. The only reason I have "canvassed" is to create a better and more in-depth discussion, and any insinuations to the contrary, I strongly reject. MattSucci (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion of unnecessary supercentenarian articles is well known, however, I am fully aware that a diverse discussion is needed to create an accurate consensus, hence my messaging users that are also biased towards keeping, and should that consensus eventually lean to keep, then so be it. MattSucci (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my messages were totally neutral and asked nothing other than for that particular editor's thoughts. MattSucci (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belcher mountains and Belcher islands

Hi, Katzrockso! Great job finding that extra source for the Belcher Mountains; you're right about their notability. When I read both sources, I found that they both indicate that Belcher Islands and Belcher Mountains are names that have been used for the same place:

https://gq.mines.gouv.qc.ca/documents/examine/RG020II(A)/RG020II(A).pdf, page 18, Paragraph 3 and
https://gq.mines.gouv.qc.ca/documents/EXAMINE/S162/S162.pdf page 280, under "RICHMOND BELTED PLAIN"

Do you have different information? If so, can we add it to the articles so this is clear to others? If not, what do you think about merging Belcher Mountains into Belcher Islands? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, they are probably a description of some rock formation on Belcher Islands. I am not entirely opposed to merging Belcher Mountains into Belcher Islands. Perhaps adding a subsection to Belcher Islands#Geography would be the best resolution.

"Gill gave this name to the arcuate subprovince lying east of Richmond Gulf, Hudson Bay, and he considers it a part of Ungava Province. The presumably equivalent rocks cropping out in Belcher islands are termed Belcher Mountains."

"other late-Precambrian rock have been identified (1). However, on the east coast of Hudson bay, in the vicinity of Richmond gulf, Low (1903), and also Leith (1910, p..236), refers to granite intrusive into disturbed Proterozoic-like rocks that have been named the Nastapoka, or Belcher Island, series, and somewhat similar disturbed rocks are intruded by granitic rocks south of Ungava bay, in the region of the Quebec-Labrador boundary. To the first of these disturbed areas, Cooke (1931, pp. 137439) has given the name Belcher mountains, and to the second, Labrador mountains."

We only have 2 short paragraphs. The first one seems to indicate that the rocks emerging from Belcher Islands = the Belcher Mountains. My reading of the second one indicates that some rocks "on the east coast of Hudson bay" have been named the Nastapoka series, Belcher Island series, or the "Belcher mountains". This second one does not indicate where the "Belcher mountains" are geographically located except that they are "on the east coast of Hudson bay".

Perhaps searching under these two other names (Nastapoka series / Belcher Island series) can find more relevant information - a cursory search of mine did yield some hits, but I am busy working on some other projects to check in more depth.

Thanks Katzrockso (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking time away from your other projects. I don't want to bug you, so I'll look more into this on my own and if I do perform the merge, please do revert it if you feel it's not for the best. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]