| Revision as of 11:55, 13 September 2015 editJenks24 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users77,470 edits →Relisting mystery: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:38, 13 September 2015 edit undo1.136.97.67 (talk) →Siren controversy: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| Hi Jenks24, can you see why my relists for ] and ] didn't stick? Whatever bot handles that sort of thing seems to be temperamental. Do we actually know how it works? --] (]) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | Hi Jenks24, can you see why my relists for ] and ] didn't stick? Whatever bot handles that sort of thing seems to be temperamental. Do we actually know how it works? --] (]) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Relists now have to go at the end of the nomination string, I've fixed those you mentioned here . It's a pretty recent change, I think there was a note left about it at ] or somesuch but can understand why plenty of people missed it. Thanks your recent closures at RM, much appreciated. It's probably the same for you at RfD where it can feel like the more you comment on discussions the more discussions end up sitting in the backlog for weeks. I peaked at your talk page by the way and agree that SMALLDETAILS is kind of a mess at the moment – hopefully one day there might be a consensus to clarify the wording there but I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, ] (]) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | :Relists now have to go at the end of the nomination string, I've fixed those you mentioned here . It's a pretty recent change, I think there was a note left about it at ] or somesuch but can understand why plenty of people missed it. Thanks your recent closures at RM, much appreciated. It's probably the same for you at RfD where it can feel like the more you comment on discussions the more discussions end up sitting in the backlog for weeks. I peaked at your talk page by the way and agree that SMALLDETAILS is kind of a mess at the moment – hopefully one day there might be a consensus to clarify the wording there but I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, ] (]) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Siren controversy == | |||
| Your edit was vandalism. The incident is relevant, notable and verifiable. Your excuse for reversion does not address the content. If you revert again you will be reported. Consider this your only warning. ] (]) 22:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:38, 13 September 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Welcome to my talk page! Here's a few notes that may be helpful to read before posting:
|
Pluralizing "Americans"
The discussion was archived without a closing rationale. Shall we pluralize "Americans" already, or shall I start at Talk:Americans first and disregard that discussion? We got Talk:Korean Americans and Talk:African American conflicting each other. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Frustrating one. You did the right thing by starting a RfC at the village pump and no one there actually disagreed with pluralising, but at the same time there probably wasn't enough support to batch move hundreds(?) of articles. Probably better to be safe than sorry and start a new discussion at Talk:Americans. I imagine that if you (or anyone) just started moving articles now citing the VP discussion there would be plenty of complaints. Jenks24 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, it's already at "Americans". What's the point now? I'll propose change on other demonyms ending with "American" instead. --George Ho (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Closure at Leo Frank
Hello. When you closed the discussion at Talk:Leo_Frank#Requested_move_29_August_2015, about half of the discussion was not highlighted. Any chance of a fix? Akld guy (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, should be fixed now. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It certainly is. Thanks for your prompt attention! Akld guy (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Was it really necessary to remove this hook?
Per this. During the DYK nomination, it was suggested that I take his name out of the hook, and I agreed, going to the present wording. I received no indication at the time that that wouldn't have been enough, so I feel a little blindsided on this one. Especially since the user who reported it to DYK/ERRORS overdid himself in renaming the article to "Death of ...", something I've reverted and explained to him that "murder" is a legal finding by an investigative authority regardless of whether anyone is ever prosecuted or convicted of the crime, much less identified as a suspect (we have plenty of articles on unsolved murders that begin "Murder of ...", after all).
However, it was not necessary to remove the hook entirely. While I think the wording of BLPCRIME is flawed in that by saying that we should not say that "relatively unknown people" are accused of committing crimes we seem to fail to distinguish between "formally accused" (as in "arrested and charged by the proper authorities", which the young man in this case has been, in the latter case by two nations) and "informally accused" (by people on Internet comment threads, say), it says what it says, at least for now, and your talk page is not the place to change it.
We could nevertheless have kept the hook by rewording it to avoid all mention of a suspect, making it something like "... that the murder of Shao Tong one year ago today will be prosecuted in China although it occurred in Iowa?" Could you consider less drastic solutions like that in the future, please? Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, I'd just say I realise this must be an annoying situation for you to put serious work into the article to have it featured on the MP, only for it to be pulled when no one had objected in the weeks leading up to it. I appreciate your collegial tone here.
I did read the DYK nom and see it had already been altered to avoid mentioning the man's name, and that it had then been approved. I also checked WT:DYK to see if there was any discussion of it. But there didn't appear to be any further discussion of it and the hook was clearly in contravention on BLPCRIME. I had meant to leave the discussion for the hook up so that other ERRORS regulars could review my decision, but several minutes later it was removed as resolved by a regular DYK admin (diff) – I assumed that was an implicit endorsement of my decision, but in hindsight I should probably have restored the discussion for at least as long as that set of DYK hooks were up. I should also have notified you or left a note on the article talk page.
Your suggestion to consider altering the hook instead of removing it completely is a good one. I don't really know what to tell about why I didn't at least try this yesterday – perhaps I was too conscious of it being a BLP issue. Regardless, it's something that I should have thought of and I apologise that I didn't. It's definitely something I will take on board for the future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your wonderful reply. It is a breath of fresh air after one recently-concluded DYK discussion I've been involved in all summer. I especially like being praised for being collegial, since I preach that so much. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sirengate
If you would just have a look at the talk page, it appears that it has already been discussed. It stays as relevant and verified. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lol. If you hadn't pointed me to the talk page I wouldn't have even realised you were clearly Justa Punk/AFL-Cool. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Quique Sánchez Flores - Intro
Hi there from Portugal,
please keep this in mind, in the first part of the lead it should also be mentioned he coaches Watford, the bottom part is a SUMMARY of his coaching spells. I tried to help (as I imagine you do to), but I won't touch that intro with a ten-feet pole anymore, don't want any bad situations needlessly emerging, and I have already done a good bit (I would hope so) by sourcing all his honours so that they won't be removed. Your version is the one that current stands, I only made some itty-bitty adjustments now.
Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Obviously you've done good work on the article, I hope there were no hard feelings about the change I made – everyone's writing can do with some looking over and I say that from personal experience. I also don't condone the attacks the other IP was making on you. Regardless of the point he was trying to make the way he was communicating it wasn't OK. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes fellow user, all about teamwork. Best as well, --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Newsflash: if you check my talkpage (last message), the insults continue, don't know if this troll thinks I am User:MYS77 or just likes to get on people's cases. This IP, as the last one in Flores' article, has been blocked. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Gi2C Group Ltd page deletion
Hi,
Could I ask which parts exactly you thought were advertorial for this page which you deleted: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Gi2C_Group_Ltd.
As I don't see how the Gi2C page was any different than this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/CRCC_Asia
Thanks, Blackwhiteyellowred17 Blackwhiteyellowred17 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. After a bit of digging I found out what you were after. I deleted Gi2C Group Ltd. because it was a redirect to Gi2C Group, which is where the content was located. As you can see by clicking on that redlink, it has been deleted three times – each time because the reviewing administrator assessed it as being clear advertising/promotion and another time because it was felt the article didn't make a credible assertion of importance. Each page when nominated for deletion is judged on its merits, so the relative quality of other articles is largely irrelevant. If you want much more of a response, I'd suggest following up with one of the three admins listed in the deletion log for that page. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A WP:THANK in text mode
A quick thanks for this this. It was a great way to take the actually useful part (providing a detailed rationale with no-consensus closes), and tie it back to WP:POLICY and actual discussion-closing norms, from a suggestion that was floating off in 'I want to punish those who don't share my view that brevity is more important than accuracy' space. As someone pilloried frequently for not being as concise as some people would like, it's nice to see someone at a noticeboard not siding with the 'whoever compresses more wins' view (even if you're among those who think I'm too loquacious). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 09:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I really do appreciate the views I get at MRV, particularly from people uninvolved with the original discussion – it's almost the only forum where I get (largely) unbiased opinions on what I'm doing right and wrong as a closer, so I do try to take most things on board. If you were interested in becoming more of a 'regular' there, even if it was only dropping by once a month or so, we could use you. Your quick comment at the "Communist Party of Britain" has provided a useful point of discussion, for example. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisting mystery
Hi Jenks24, can you see why my relists for Talk:Football at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Requested move 6 August 2015 and Talk:Shunga#Requested move 10 August 2015 didn't stick? Whatever bot handles that sort of thing seems to be temperamental. Do we actually know how it works? --BDD (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Relists now have to go at the end of the nomination string, I've fixed those you mentioned here . It's a pretty recent change, I think there was a note left about it at WT:RM or somesuch but can understand why plenty of people missed it. Thanks your recent closures at RM, much appreciated. It's probably the same for you at RfD where it can feel like the more you comment on discussions the more discussions end up sitting in the backlog for weeks. I peaked at your talk page by the way and agree that SMALLDETAILS is kind of a mess at the moment – hopefully one day there might be a consensus to clarify the wording there but I'm not holding my breath. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Siren controversy
Your edit was vandalism. The incident is relevant, notable and verifiable. Your excuse for reversion does not address the content. If you revert again you will be reported. Consider this your only warning. 1.136.97.67 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)