User talk:Sardonism

Auto-populating list of talk page archives: Archive 1

Hi there! If I leave a message on your Talk Page, please respond there. Unless you indicate you'd prefer otherwise, I will respond to messages on my talk page here. Cheers!

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

Katie^talk 14:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! ···sardonism · t · c 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

In response to your edit-summary comment, don't waste your time trying to figure out why long-term abusive editors do what they do. It will only make your head hurt. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT claims

We're kind of fed up with them on chess articles. Magnus Carlsen, Garri Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand, Bobby Fischer and even Paul Morphy all have their advocates and it gets tiresome arguing about it. So we usually just remove any such claims, cause they only attract edit warriors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message.

To be honest, I'm still finding my feet WRT to HELP:REVIEWING; my read of the policy in a nutshell is, essentially, "default to accepting the edit unless you see either a clear policy violation or would otherwise yourself revert the edit after accepting it".

As the edit in question was from a new user who I presume to be operating in good faith - albeit potentially needing to be pointed towards WP:OWN / WP:EDITWAR (which I had been hoping to avoid, but alas) as they have tried that particular addition to the article a few times now - it had been my hope that I could gently reject the pending edit, cite in the edit summary some evergreen advice for them to be aware of going fowards, and that that might be that. Granted, I'm now beginning to wonder whether they're even aware of the History tab & others' edit summaries at all...

I'm still ruminating over how best to broach giving them a helpful 'tap on the shoulder', so to speak, without being discouraging; I've seen nothing to believe they're operating in bad faith. I suspect a new user who is unfamiliar with pending changes and the history tab, and who is unaccustomed to checking others' edit summaries, could simply have reached the conclusion that there was some kind of software bug or issue with their network connection that prevented their edit from being saved, and that they should thus try the same edit again later.

I might be guilty of taking WP:BITE to an unhelpful logical extreme, but in general it is my conviction that the greatest way one can contribute to Wikipedia is to help nurture new community members and create as welcoming and tolerant an environment as can reasonably be done to give them the great possible chance of becoming long-term contributors to the project. I'd like to phrase a personal message to them rather than just dropping a template on their talk page and continuing on (the latter of which I have, admittedly, already tried in this case - apparently to no avail).

FWIW, my instinct WRT the stance you've outlined is to agree with it wholesale. I fear such claims tend to be subjective and difficult to reach a consensus on; if they aren't guilty of MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:WEASEL they definitely at least approach them; it's dubious whether they're truly encyclopedic in nature - overall, they strike me as being more trouble than they're worth. Or, in short - I would rather document the reasons that some may believe someone is the GOAT and allow the reader to reach their own conclusions. ···sardonism · t · c 23:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark: Y'know - upon reflection, I probably should've just asked you if you could help with this (or even do it for me!).

I gave it the good ole college try - I guess we'll see what happens. Cheers, ···sardonism · t · c 13:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]