| Revision as of 04:10, 20 June 2020 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,748 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:29, 21 June 2020 edit undoLSGH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,406 edits →Saida Muna Tasneem: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ==Whoops== | ==Whoops== | ||
| I wanted to thank you for reverting me as I didn't realise the reinstated edits were not the subject of the RFC. ] (]) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | I wanted to thank you for reverting me as I didn't realise the reinstated edits were not the subject of the RFC. ] (]) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Saida Muna Tasneem == | |||
| Hello. I happened to pass by BLPN to read an unrelated subsection, then I noticed in another subsection that someone who claims to be a Bangladeshi diplomat wanted to have some information removed from ]. Why was there a need to act on his request? Misplaced Pages is not censored, and the information that he was pertaining to was also published in other sites. It's already euphemistic to refer to that incident using more gentle words. Also, how sure are others that the account was really operated by the Bangladeshi diplomat? Was his identity verified? Does he have a COI? ''']''' (]) (]) 11:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:29, 21 June 2020
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Why open an RFC
Can you explain why we would need two concurring discussions to happen simultaneously about the Edward Kosner matter? The discussion at BLPN was started no more than 12 hours ago, and has a wide variety of participants. Would you please consider suspending that RFC until this other discussion concludes (if not canceling it entirely, as there will likely be enough discussion at BLPN to determine whether a consensus can be found in this matter)? At this rate, I will be unable to catch an hours worth of sleep... and I'm not sure many of the participants want to have to repeat themselves 3 times over. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I explained why: it's obvious (to me, anyway) that unstructured discussions will not lead to consensus. What we need is a formal discussion that will (eventually) be closed by an uninvolved admin who decides what the consensus is. This is entirely normal... BTW: nothing now prevents you from getting some sleep! Lo aleicha ligmor ()... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- BLPN is the site of many formal discussions, and I fail to believe an uninvolved admin will not be closing that thread in due time (it's only been 12 hours). Discussions do not have to run in poll format to be considered structured. The point of that noticeboard is the same as any on the site: to find consensus in related matters. What is the urgency for this RFC? If you can't state one, I'm going to take it upon myself to suspend this clear WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's really not up to you -- and it won't work because I haven't contributed to the discussion in any other venue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I'm tired. I don't intend to come off in a snippy manner. I'm just imploring you to suspend having two concurrent discussions of the same matter in two separate venues. Can you please consider suspension until the BLPN discussion concludes? It would be a mighty good showing of good-faith on your part to do so, and as far as I'm aware there isn't any urgent need to have the RFC before the BLPN discussion can finish. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's really not up to you -- and it won't work because I haven't contributed to the discussion in any other venue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- BLPN is the site of many formal discussions, and I fail to believe an uninvolved admin will not be closing that thread in due time (it's only been 12 hours). Discussions do not have to run in poll format to be considered structured. The point of that noticeboard is the same as any on the site: to find consensus in related matters. What is the urgency for this RFC? If you can't state one, I'm going to take it upon myself to suspend this clear WP:FORUMSHOPPING. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The essence of the song you linked me to, gets at the very nature of why I won't allow myself to sleep if I feel something is not being done properly: "V'lo ata ben chorin" - (But neither are you free to desist from it). Please show your good-faith here, and allow one discussion at a time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- So the thing is, this "don't have two discussions" line is demonstrably silly. The issue was being discussed at the article talk page. The editor who took it to BLPN started a second discussion. Putting an RfC on the article talk page does not amount to "starting a second discussion" in this context. There's no guidance suggesting that I needed to wait here; starting an RfC under circumstances like this is entirely normal (far from "disgraceful behavior", in your words). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Kingsley Fletcher
I noticed you reverted changes on Bosso Adamtey I, I made months of research before attempting the edits, will you please let me know why you think the changes are wrong, I would love to reason with you on this matter. Sincerely, User:Ml4lyfe 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- The main thing is, you deleted properly sourced information. There's no good reason to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Climate change denialists
You might want to contribute to this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Climate_change_denialists Rathfelder (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Whoops
I wanted to thank you for reverting me as I didn't realise the reinstated edits were not the subject of the RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Saida Muna Tasneem
Hello. I happened to pass by BLPN to read an unrelated subsection, then I noticed in another subsection that someone who claims to be a Bangladeshi diplomat wanted to have some information removed from Saida Muna Tasneem. Why was there a need to act on his request? Misplaced Pages is not censored, and the information that he was pertaining to was also published in other sites. It's already euphemistic to refer to that incident using more gentle words. Also, how sure are others that the account was really operated by the Bangladeshi diplomat? Was his identity verified? Does he have a COI? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)