| Revision as of 20:45, 22 May 2020 editTonyBallioni (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers49,329 edits →Request: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:24, 23 May 2020 edit undoCunard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,190 edits →Request: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
| Hi Cunard, as a follow-up to the AN discussion, I am going to ask that you cease posting any request at ANRFC. You are flooding the board, and this has been pointed out to you for years and you have not changed your approach in a meaningful way as the board is still always backlogged because admins do not review it. A common theme that has come up at AN is that some of the things you list people were going to list anyway: to me that demonstrates that your participation is not needed, as the actual participants are able to request closures themselves if one is needed. For cases where no one else wanted a closure, and you are the only one requesting one, that is a sign that one is not needed. At this point I consider your actions here to be actively disrupting the encyclopedia because they are overwhelming a board and causing admins and other experienced users not to take action where action might actually be needed. I'll cross-post this to AN, but wanted to make the request directly so it doesn't get lost. ] (]) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) | Hi Cunard, as a follow-up to the AN discussion, I am going to ask that you cease posting any request at ANRFC. You are flooding the board, and this has been pointed out to you for years and you have not changed your approach in a meaningful way as the board is still always backlogged because admins do not review it. A common theme that has come up at AN is that some of the things you list people were going to list anyway: to me that demonstrates that your participation is not needed, as the actual participants are able to request closures themselves if one is needed. For cases where no one else wanted a closure, and you are the only one requesting one, that is a sign that one is not needed. At this point I consider your actions here to be actively disrupting the encyclopedia because they are overwhelming a board and causing admins and other experienced users not to take action where action might actually be needed. I'll cross-post this to AN, but wanted to make the request directly so it doesn't get lost. ] (]) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi {{user|TonyBallioni}}. I find it very disheartening that my actions are considered disruptive as over the years to be responsive to the community's concerns by being more discriminate in my close requests. I have contributed these close requests to help editors who are not aware of ANRFC or do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC.<p>I understand your strong reasoning for making this request. I would like to continue to contribute close requests at ] but at a significantly smaller scale to make sure I do not "floo the board". My proposal is that beginning today, I will contribute between 0 and 3 close requests to ] every month. I would add (1) discussions I participated in, (2) discussions listed at ], and (3) discussions I think would benefit from a close. You previously that "~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from {{u|Cunard}}. ~20 are from all others combined". As I would not file more than 3 close requests per month, it would take 10 months for me to contribute the 30 close requests you see from me on the board today. Does this address your concern that I am "flooding the board"? Would you support this?<p>Thank you for today. I hope you continue contributing to ANRFC as the noticeboard needs people who are willing to close difficult discussions. I hope that as a result of my scaling back my close requests at ANRFC, the admins who have not responded to requests at the board because of my many close requests will now do so.<p>] (]) 02:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:24, 23 May 2020
edit count | edit summary usage
 Archives |
|
Notes
AfD
- tools:~betacommand/reports/afd
- tools:~betacommand/AFD.html
- tools:~snottywong/afdadminstats.html
- tools:~snottywong/afdstats.html
| Advanced search for: "Search" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · page history · Books Ngram Viewer
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL · toolserver ·
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Ask Mathbot (talk · contribs) to refresh Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old by accessing http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi
Copyvio
Miscellaneous
- http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ – provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches
- Misplaced Pages:A Primer for newcomers
- User:Fæ/help/photo and Misplaced Pages:Contact OTRS
- http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/
- User:Giraffedata/comprised of
- User:SMcCandlish/Logical quotation
- User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
- Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Sources of articles
- Misplaced Pages:Did you know/DYKcheck: javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();
Have requested a review of your close
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Obsession with Serpentza
Hi Cunard, are you Associated with Serpentza and his doings? Not sure why you are modifying his biography a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C000:108:19B:7FCC:4207:48A6 (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have no conflict of interest with Winston Sterzel. I am monitoring his article after I participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Winston Sterzel (2nd nomination) because it has been subject to significant vandalism in the past including BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you Andy Cravenho?
You seem to promote Mr. Cravenho a great deal. I suspect you are he. TeddyCruz (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am not Andy Cravenho. I have no conflict of interest with Andy Cravenho. I added a negative review to Invoicera so that there is more negative coverage of the software and restored the reliably sourced TechRadar review that you had removed. After restoring the Andy Cravenho review, I have re-removed it since it was written by an Entrepreneur contributor and not an Entrepreneur staff member. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
anrfc
Sorry, I didn't realize you already requested rfc closure for Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#RfC on linking to template namespace. Bait30 03:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. I don't think you did anything wrong. It's fine to keep the RfC pinned until the consensus is assessed by an WP:ANRFC closer. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| find sources | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 2196 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's been a year! Thank you for the lovely message, Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)! You are so kind! Cunard (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of VITAL (machine learning software) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VITAL (machine learning software) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/VITAL (machine learning software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop closing RfCs
Your latest closings seem disruptive. Please undo. Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SharabSalam (talk · contribs). You participated in the RfCs I procedurally closed at Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response and Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico. Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure? Cunard (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cunard, if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted my procedural closes for the Dershowitz and Sanders RfCs here and here. I do not consider the closes disruptive. I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close. If any editors believed an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves. I list RfCs at the noticeboard to help editors like you who do not know how to request a close at ANRFC or are not even aware of ANRFC. Thank you, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) for your explanation.
These are the two close requests that have been declined Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 30#Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#RfC: AOC comment about Politico. The first close request is not archived so you can comment there to ask for a close. The second close request is archived, so you will need to make a new close request at ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cunard, thank you, I have tried to add Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' RfC but it seems that I have made an error. All other request for closer below mine disappeared and my comment next to the {{initiated}} template also disappeared.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SharabSalam (talk · contribs). Thank you for requesting a close! Regarding this close request, you'll need to remove the line that says:
since it is hidden text that is causing the rest of the page to disappear. I cannot remove it myself because if I do, the ~~~~ will add my signature to the page, and an admin might think I re-requested closure of an RfC after it had been declined.<!-- Place this line below the heading:
If you think Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response also needs a close, you'll probably need to make a new request since the {{Not done}} tag in the section at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response will cause the section to be archived without a close happening.
- Hi SharabSalam (talk · contribs). Thank you for requesting a close! Regarding this close request, you'll need to remove the line that says:
- Cunard, thank you, I have tried to add Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' RfC but it seems that I have made an error. All other request for closer below mine disappeared and my comment next to the {{initiated}} template also disappeared.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted my procedural closes for the Dershowitz and Sanders RfCs here and here. I do not consider the closes disruptive. I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close. If any editors believed an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves. I list RfCs at the noticeboard to help editors like you who do not know how to request a close at ANRFC or are not even aware of ANRFC. Thank you, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) for your explanation.
- Hi Cunard, if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Request
Hi Cunard, as a follow-up to the AN discussion, I am going to ask that you cease posting any request at ANRFC. You are flooding the board, and this has been pointed out to you for years and you have not changed your approach in a meaningful way as the board is still always backlogged because admins do not review it. A common theme that has come up at AN is that some of the things you list people were going to list anyway: to me that demonstrates that your participation is not needed, as the actual participants are able to request closures themselves if one is needed. For cases where no one else wanted a closure, and you are the only one requesting one, that is a sign that one is not needed. At this point I consider your actions here to be actively disrupting the encyclopedia because they are overwhelming a board and causing admins and other experienced users not to take action where action might actually be needed. I'll cross-post this to AN, but wanted to make the request directly so it doesn't get lost. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi TonyBallioni (talk · contribs). I find it very disheartening that my actions are considered disruptive as I have tried my best over the years to be responsive to the community's concerns by being more discriminate in my close requests. I have contributed these close requests to help editors like SharabSalam who are not aware of ANRFC or do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC.
I understand your strong reasoning for making this request. I would like to continue to contribute close requests at WP:ANRFC but at a significantly smaller scale to make sure I do not "floo the board". My proposal is that beginning today, I will contribute between 0 and 3 close requests to WP:ANRFC every month. I would add (1) discussions I participated in, (2) discussions listed at Template:Centralized discussion, and (3) discussions I think would benefit from a close. You previously wrote that "~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined". As I would not file more than 3 close requests per month, it would take 10 months for me to contribute the 30 close requests you see from me on the board today. Does this address your concern that I am "flooding the board"? Would you support this?
Thank you for your work closing RfCs at ANRFC today. I hope you continue contributing to ANRFC as the noticeboard needs people who are willing to close difficult discussions. I hope that as a result of my scaling back my close requests at ANRFC, the admins who have not responded to requests at the board because of my many close requests will now do so.