| Revision as of 00:03, 17 October 2014 editCunard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,089 edits →Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:01, 28 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,663 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:TParis/Archive 17) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk header}} | {{talk header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| {{Administrator review|TParis 2}} | |||
| |counter = 17 | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| |archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{tmbox | {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{tmbox | ||
| |small = {{{small|}}} | |small = {{{small|}}} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:TParis/Nav}} | {{User:TParis/Nav}} | ||
| {{semi-retired}} | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |small = {{{small|}}} | |||
| |image = none | |||
| |style = text-align: center; | |||
| |text = '''Notification of pending semi-retirement:'''<br> | |||
| Upon the completion of my ] edit-a-thon project, I will be retiring the mop completely and my editing will be turning to a semi-retirement. I plan to restrict my editing to ] and ] topics entirely and my editing rate is going to decrease dramatically. I simply have no more interest in the bickering, disrespect for each other, and the level of incompetence among editors and administrators concerning management. I'm frustrated by the WMF, I'm frustrated by Sue Gardener's 'legacy', I'm frustrated that people of differing viewpoints cannot get along, but I think the thing that frustrates me the most is the level of advocacy on Misplaced Pages. I've lost hope in a NPOV encyclopedia. I don't think a popular encyclopedia can also be a neutral encyclopedia.<p>To put simply, I cannot handle the level of righteousness here.<p>I'm retaining the mop until my project is complete so I can assist participants with their needs but also to provide me some legitimacy as I attempt to bring local partners into the project (such as libraries, museums, and universities). Thanks for caring to read. Know that this has been a long time in thought and the decision was not made rashly. Any 'crat seeing this message after 1 March 2015 may remove my sysop rights if I have not either retracted this statement or made the request myself.}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 14 | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| |archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=yes}} | |||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | ||
| {| style="clear:both;" | |||
| |} | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| == Image == | |||
| Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at . It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :]. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - ]] 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per ]. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - ]] 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - ]] 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ''30 year old campaign and still running. | |||
| :So. Fucking. What. | |||
| ''Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed'' | |||
| :Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing, | |||
| :And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not ]. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --] | ] 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - ]] 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tps}}I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. ] (]) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Closure == | |||
| TParis, as you are completely uninvoled and you have performed a number of closures on AN/I recently, I would like to see if you can close ]. Bots are pretty quick in AN/I, there are only 3-4 hours left. I had bumped it before. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure you'd want me to close that. I'm sure not it currently leans in your favor - or leans at all for that matter.--v/r - ]] 03:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks anyways. Request for closer has a backlog, like you know. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, if I was feeling bolder, I might close it as ] but it's very much on an edge. I'd hate to close it against you after you asked me to help.--v/r - ]] 04:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|OccultZone}} I've left some support for you and ] has as well. Perhaps that'll be enough to convince another administrator to lean in your favor.--v/r - ]] 21:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you very much. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 03:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Violation of topic ban == | |||
| that you imposed on {{u|Zambelo}} (that didn't take long). I just reverted it and given that I am on his list of evil POV editors (on his user page), I guess I should consider myself involved. (sorry that is not a diff, but for some reason my browser gets blocked when I look at diffs of large edits...). Thanks. --] (]) 10:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Wrong. Landmark Worldwide isn't a New Religious movement. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">]</span>; ]</span> 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(talk page stalker) (statement made by Zambelo in reference to the question on if Landmark Worldwide was a religion). ] (]) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| More like a stalker fullstop huh? Coffeepusher. So you are saying Landmark is a NRM? Just to clarify. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">]</span>; ]</span> 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply to|Zambelo}} I'm going to give you a break on my talk page being that you are supposed to be able to talk to the imposing admin about your topic ban. But be sure to direct comments about your topic ban toward me, and not others on my talk page, in the future. As far as your topic ban is concerned, Landmark is a NRM. You can call it whatever you like off Misplaced Pages, but you are not allowed to talk about it at all on Misplaced Pages unless you are appealing to ] or filing an Arbcom case to appeal your topic ban.--v/r - ]] 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm afraid that this is all too typical of the "]" style special pleading that ] and ] indulge in. After arguing strenuously that Landmark '''is''' a New Religious Movement - and edit warring to keep a completely ] section to that effect in the article, they want to argue that it '''is not''' when that suits their purposes! ] (]) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the input, but Zambelo has already acknowledged that Landmark falls within the scope of the topic ban and so it's not really constructive to continue talking about him. Intentional or not, it comes off as baiting.--v/r - ]] 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I wasn't aware of that admission, and there was no intention of baiting. btw I'm sorry to hear of your frustrations with Wkipedia, and your semi-retirement. From the little I've seen of you, you will be missed. ] (]) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's fine. ] explained to him on his talk page that as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, it is within the scope of his topic ban and he said that was "fair enough." So, now it's time to move on and let it rest. Thanks for the kind comments.--v/r - ]] 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Good archive == | |||
| Game 3 of the NLCS just started and I don't need the distraction. But if the game turns out to be a stinker I hope someone reverts you :p ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh, well I received three "thanks" within 60 seconds of trying to archive that so maybe possibly it has a chance.--v/r - ]] 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, thank you. I have asked Lila to have a look at it, as I think this is a key issue for the community going forward. Whatever one's opinion of the abstract philosophical question of whether it is "worth it" to accept longterm abuse from people who contribute (or allegedly contribute) "good content" - it is a question that we need to resolve.--] (]) 20:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Revert! ]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ANI close == | |||
| You are saying things about teamwork and such but as long as Eric Corbett rubs editors the wrong way with his insults and snide remarks there can be nothing to be found here. I disagree with your statement about "Untouchables" since when are editors immune to the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages? While you may have closed the topic today the long running war has not stopped and will have to be addressed sooner or later. - ] (]) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That close reflected both reality and fantasy. The reality is that attempts to impose any kind of sanction on Eric or Jimbo will be futile. The fantasy is that we could all come together and realize that we're a team, we've developed a collection of knowledge that rivals the Library of Alexandria, and that what we have done as a group is amazing and worthy of being proud of. We need to stop drawing lines. There are going to be troubles but we need to remember that we're all on the same side and find ways to come together to solve them instead of breaking into camps.--v/r - ]] 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that there should not be camps here but it appears there are so how do you propose to go about solving this in the long run if you are against sanctions? - ] (]) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not against sanctions. I'm against drama. If you have a suggestion for a way to actually successfully achieve sanctions against Jimbo and Eric with the ] of drama necessary, I am happy to hear it. At the moment, Jimbo and Eric are discussing the matter on their talk page. Let Jimbo's talk page get caught up in edit conflicts - and let ANI remain editable.--v/r - ]] 22:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == copy of deleted article? == | |||
| hi tp. you are in the category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted material. | |||
| an inexperienced user got in too deep too fast and has lost one of his articles. i helped him save the other two in user space (they will likely and rightfully deleted from mainspace) and set up an empty page for the deleted one. | |||
| so could you please retrieve the deleted content from ] and paste it here: ]? | |||
| Not sure if that is the appropriate way to ask - never did this before. but thanks! | |||
| Sorry to see that you are retiring, and in a 'walking into the sunset sad cowboy' kind of way. it has been good interacting with you. ] (]) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I've enjoyed working on this project with a lot of people and you are certainly one of them. I've restored the page and userfied it.--v/r - ]] 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::double thanks! ] (]) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::oh crap. that diagnosoft article was just a stub? not a much longer thing in the history? i thought i looked at it a couple of days ago and there was more content (bad content, but stuff to work with). sorry for not being more specific i hate wasting people's time... sorry. ] (]) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, there are only 3 other edits. Once adds an A7 tag, one adds a COI tag, and the last is a bot adding a date to the COI tag.--v/r - ]] 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::ach in that case i am sorry i bothered you! i misremembered. sorry. ] (]) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == IN RE: Centrism == | |||
| I'm bringing this here, after finding your commentary, including your linking to ], at a different user's talkpage interesting. First, that essay doesn't seem particularly useful, as linking to it in conversation would tend to make the person to whom you were addressing it feel attacked. With that said, however, your point about centrism is a good one. I for one have never known a true "centrist." I've known people who hold a mix of what would be called conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. positions on various issues, but those type of people aren't "centrist", at least in my view. There ''are'' some people who hold almost universally liberal or universally conservative ideals, but those people are quite rare, in my experience. I, for one, hold a wild mix of strongly liberal and strongly conservative ideas. (For example, who has ever heard of a person who is anti-gun control, but also pro-drug legalization?) Anyways, just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know I thought your comments regarding centrism were very on-point, although the linking to the MPOV was a bit less so. Regards, ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Almost like linking ] to a user with a competence problem, then? Perhaps - though I wasn't trying to say Factchecker has a MPOV, only that it is frequent enough to warrant a meta page. In any case, I find my views change often based on what I learn all the time. But I could most often be called a social libertarian economic conservative. I'd say I'm an Objectivist with a heart for helping others (with my own hands of course). In any case, I'd say the only centrists are the apathetics and they are unlikely to argue anyway. I'm entirely fed up with the biases here. Misplaced Pages isn't one way or another, but each individual topic has a particular slant. What that slant is depends on the topic. Tired of it. Just tired of it. And it's not just disputes with political leanings. Things related to Malleus/Eric, COIs, AFD/BEFORE, Arbcom itself, Jimbo himself, deletionism...no body cares what we actually do here anymore. ''(sigh)'' It doesn't matter what side of the drama anyone is on, all of them treat it like an MMORPG. Just so tired of it. And tired of people saying the other side is the MMORPG side - and none of them realize they all are. I got off an a tangent here, but yeah, centrism is rare if it even exists at all.--v/r - ]] 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess because my particular biases are on the content-creators side of the discussion, I have little patience for Jimbo, or for people who value esoteric "civility" above all else. Should people be kind to each other? Sure. If they're not, should they be blocked from editing? In my view, no. It is my personal perspective that if blocks were limited ''only'' to vandals, ''blatant'' POV-pushers (i.e. Church of Scientology-types), and those who stalk and harass people in real life, the dramaboard would go out of business, and editors and admins whose wikilives revolve around those boards would eventually leave the project. And in my opinion, that would not be a bad thing at all. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's an interesting perspective and it might work - though I doubt it has any chance of happening. My views are that I'd rather that everyone just bite their tongue so we could focus on what will actually matter in 50 years. What people write will matter, how we treated each other will only matter insofar as it distracted us from the goal. Who is responsible for that distraction doesn't matter as much as the fact that we were distracted does.--v/r - ]] 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec|This is a reply to your earlier version}}Over the 8 years I've spent on the project, I've found Malleus/Eric to be ''extremely'' helpful and quite easy to get along with. I can understand why others might have a different perspective, but I have ''no'' patience for the way Jimbo (and those who frequent Jimbo's page) treats him. Jimbo has forgotten what this project is supposed to be, and in my opinion, the project would be better were he to be removed from having any influence on it. In my perfect world, his talkpage would be deleted, salted, and put down a memory hole. I apologize for how "rant-y" this post is, but I just can't get past my anger at how he treats some of our best content creators. Are you familiar with his insults against both Bishonen and Giano? ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry about the multiple versions. After I wrote the first post, I decided I didn't want to make the issue personal by mentioning names. Then as I read what I wrote, I realized I had several caveats and tangents that I wanted addressed. It spiraled out of control from there. I haven't had the best interactions with Giano. One in fact. I made an innocent (and funny) joke and he got very angry and made threats. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with Bishzilla, though. But to answer your question, no I have not seen either. I have seen Jimbo make some comments that fall far outside community culture. I've seen several WMF staffers do the same to include Sue. I think our problems could not be easily solved by taking Jimbo out of the picture though. We'd by cutting off an arm of a greater monster created out of our own culture. Our monster is all of us and no one knows how to fight it.--v/r - ]] 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He blocked her, for no other reason than to be vindictive, and referred to her as a "toxic personality." As for removing Jimbo from any and all governance of the project, it wouldn't ''completely'' solve the problems, but it would ''begin'' the process. He has utterly lost the plot on what makes this project what it is, and I can't foresee any way back for him. That said, I don't think any of the powers-that-be have it in them to block him, and really start a discussion about what ails the project. And I don't think the arbs would be willing to sanction him for how he treats people who directly challenge his bullshit. Long story short(er), nothing will change, and eventually Misplaced Pages will stagnate. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Is Xtools down? == | |||
| Hello TParis. I am from ptwiki and I noticed that Xtools is currently down (=504 Gateway Time-out). Did something happened? Or someone just tripped over the cable? :P Thank you in advance. --] (]) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds like tools lab is down altogether. It's usually just a hiccup when this stuff happens.--v/r - ]] 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh great. :( So thank you again. Should I file a bug on bugzilla or just wait? --] (]) 22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nah, give it a bit and it'll work itself out. Can you give me an exact link you are trying?--v/r - ]] 23:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually, any link does not work (like this: ). Anyway, people from the chat instructed me to file a bug, so I did ==> {{bug|72104}} :( --] (]) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Case opened == | |||
| You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]] 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--]] 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at ] that summarized the arguments well. | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| You wrote at ] (, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference): | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| *So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had: | |||
| #You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages. | |||
| #You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to ] namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it. | |||
| #Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - ]] 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| </div> | |||
| '''My thoughts:''' | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> | |||
| == ''The Bugle'': Issue 223, November 2024 == | |||
| #This is the best option. I hope Randykitty will agree with this, but he did not change his position at the DRV, so I don't know if he would do that now. | |||
| #I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. The content as preserved at http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/VideoPad could be merged selectively into ]. Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline ]. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate ]. | |||
| #An emailed copy of the page would leave the history hidden to other non-admins and would not satisfy the attribution requirements of ]. | |||
| {| style="width: 100%;" | |||
| I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer {{user|Unscintillating}}'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?" | |||
| | valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | | |||
| {| | |||
| | ] | |||
| | width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| * Project news: '']'' | |||
| * Articles: '']'' | |||
| * Book review: '']'' | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| <div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> | |||
| ''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1256183913 --> | |||
| == Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards == | |||
| But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable. | |||
| Voting is now open for the ] ] and ] awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes ] and ] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via ] (]) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I propose a fourth option: | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Hawkeye7@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1259903100 --> | |||
| <ol start="4"> | |||
| <li>] states: <blockquote>If the administrator finds that there is '''no consensus''' in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.</blockquote> Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"? | |||
| == Always precious == | |||
| Reasons in support of a relist: | |||
| ] | |||
| *Paraphrasing from the eloquent November 2011 close of ]: <blockquote>At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish ], and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the ''opportunity'' to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending ''this'' discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, ''this'' discussion needs to get out of its way.</blockquote> | |||
| Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *As {{user|SmokeyJoe}} , "there is no evidence that the earlier participants even read Cunard's 11:28, 28 September 2014 post. I guess that 5 minutes just wasn't long enough?" ] was closed at 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC). | |||
| </li> | |||
| </ol> | |||
| If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4. | |||
| :I remember that! I believe this was also the same day that ] hit the front page for the first time too. Thank you! v/r - ]] 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion. | |||
| == ''The Bugle'': Issue 224, December 2024 == | |||
| As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at ], which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes. | |||
| {| style="width: 100%;" | |||
| ] (]) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | | |||
| :I'm not sure what a relist would do. I think what has happened here is that you've found a hole in policy that should be addressed somewhat. I think the next step, and perhaps RandyKitty would agree, is to hold an RFC on ] about whether defaulting to keeping the history for a redirect is desirable except in cases of copyright vioations or BLP issues.--v/r - ]] 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {| | |||
| ::The DRV discussed two questions: | |||
| | ] | |||
| ::#Was deleting the article's history an accurate assessment of the AfD's consensus? | |||
| | width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> | |||
| ::#Does undeleting the edit history under the redirect improve the encyclopedia? | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| ::At the DRV, "endorse" participants found (1) correct so did not feel the need to address (2). If only (2) was considered at the DRV, there would be a clear consensus to restore the redirect.<p>A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at ]).<p>The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at ] in January 2011, where the closer wrote: <blockquote>There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)</blockquote> The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at ] () earlier this year.<p>] (]) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Project news: '']'' | |||
| * Articles: '']'' | |||
| * Book review: '']'' | |||
| * Op-ed: '']'' | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| <div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> | |||
| ''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1264992348 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:01, 28 December 2024
| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I remember that! I believe this was also the same day that Ford Island hit the front page for the first time too. Thank you! v/r - TP 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)