![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ JzG: Can you please protect the article Andrew Holness, he has been persistantly attacked. Catfurball ( talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Guy. I think I may have mis-formatted a ping to you from AE at this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or
by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
that's me: either nowhere near enough words, or far, far too many :-(
Did trim, but am away for the weekend with minimal access. Thx. Not logged in, using mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.185 ( talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Greater_Good_(film)&oldid=975997130 I added an "External links" section with a link to the official website of the documentary that is the subject of the article. You reverted this edit, if I understand correctly.
Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision - adding the IMDB link would be helpful too (doing so hadn't occurred to me initially).
Tabledhote ( talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy:
> we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers
Your statement directly contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view, and I find disconcerting that you, as an administrator, would consider this a valid argument. If a topic is considered noteworthy and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article, there is no justification for not giving it the same treatment as other topics, especially not for reasons based on your personal opinions.
> It's a crockumentary.
See previous point.
Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabledhote ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
For your thoughtful responses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (3rd nomination). Too often dialogue between nominator and !voter becomes an unproductive mire of accusations; I appreciate your respectfully pointing out the shortcomings in my argument. Clearly WP:BLP had slipped my mind. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
[1] Can I suggest you remove your edit mentioning this case. @ Drmies: W C M email 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe WCM is right here. The number of people who have accepted citizenship is a complicated question to effectively discuss for reasons we can do nothing about. It is 3/4/5 depending on how you count. But sourcing is complicated by external factors. Whatever language you care to propose re: rarity is fine by me. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Do you think there is any point re-submitting the RfC on that page with a revised question, as you mentioned earlier? -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Guy, I wondered if you could take a look re: the discussion I began here. Thanks a lot. Sxologist ( talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I prefer to avoid an edit war as much as you seem to be, I'm going to explain the reasons for the links I've added to the Canopy express article that you seem to dismiss as merely fanpages. Those sites have more detail that can benefit the article. The Stovebolt page is more geared towards the Chevrolet models, but it's not without worthy material. The one from "Brad's 1941-46 Chevy Trucks" had three different weight classes; 1/2 ton (3107), 1 ton (3807), and 1 1/2 ton (4107). However the page is dead and for some reason can't be archived, therefore I've hidden that link, until something new can replace it. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to formally object to your inappropriate close of the Parasite (film) MR. The RM closer found the Support side to be based in policy much better than Oppose. That’s subjective but it’s not a super vote. It’s doing their job per every applicable policy and guideline. For the MR closer to second-guess the RM-closer’s evaluation of the RM arguments based on policy is inappropriate. But what makes this outrageous is that the RM Closer explained how they arrived at their evaluation in much clearer terms than did you in closing the MR. Accordingly, I request that you reverse or at least revert your close of this MR. — В²C ☎ 00:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
More specifically, you assert without basis, “ the guidelines do conflict”. Please identify which guidelines applicable to this proposal you believe conflict and explain how they conflict. To make this assertion in your MR close, fundamental to your decision, without identifying/explaining accordingly, is just another example of what’s wrong with your close. But doing it now, better late than never, if you can, would be helpful. But what would be better is to realize there is no such conflict, as Sceptre clearly explained in the close you overturned, and reverse your decision accordingly. Thank you. — В²C ☎ 00:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Having endorsed Sceptre's closure, I agree with В²C. There was no consensus at the MRV, so the closure really should have been endorsed. Please understand that the fact that you are an admin and a trusted editor is important to me, and yet your MRV closure was a supervote (or maybe a mega-supervote?); you did call it a "judgement call", so how is that different? Your speedy response would be appreciated. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I just want to add that I just noticed the MRV was still quite active today when it closed after only one week, and, I, for one, would like to participate. MRVs are often for weeks. What was the hurry on this one? — В²C ☎ 04:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
[2] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I recently replied to your proposal on Talk:Kyiv. Shortly thereafter Talk:Kyiv was edit protected from non-usernamed editors until Sep 30. Shortly after that, K.e.coffman removed my comment (supposedly accidnetally, as in their edit comment they only mentioned they are removing the re-organizing under one header of post-RM clean up, that I previously did). Since then I have asked K.e.coffman to restore my comment, but he just ignored me and did not do so.
I still stand by my reply to your proposal and think it is a useful contribution to that discussion. Since it was you, whome I was adressing my reply, I am asking how else can I get my reply reinstated?:
You suggestion would be appreciated.-- 67.175.201.50 ( talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Jzg. I am not trying to promote her book, the book was written years ago. I have just been trying to update the page as it's been years. The book itself isn't getting an article, but I believe that the book is a notable portion of her career. My main issue with your deletions were the removal of the TED talks, and the conference in Mexico. The links are simply to provide evidence that they occurred, not for promotional purposes. If the issues are with the source, I'd like to find better sources, not remove the sourced information. Anyways, I hope that clears things up some. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@ JzG: Can you please protect the article Andrew Holness, he has been persistantly attacked. Catfurball ( talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Guy. I think I may have mis-formatted a ping to you from AE at this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or
by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
that's me: either nowhere near enough words, or far, far too many :-(
Did trim, but am away for the weekend with minimal access. Thx. Not logged in, using mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.185 ( talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
In edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Greater_Good_(film)&oldid=975997130 I added an "External links" section with a link to the official website of the documentary that is the subject of the article. You reverted this edit, if I understand correctly.
Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision - adding the IMDB link would be helpful too (doing so hadn't occurred to me initially).
Tabledhote ( talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy:
> we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers
Your statement directly contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view, and I find disconcerting that you, as an administrator, would consider this a valid argument. If a topic is considered noteworthy and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article, there is no justification for not giving it the same treatment as other topics, especially not for reasons based on your personal opinions.
> It's a crockumentary.
See previous point.
Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabledhote ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
For your thoughtful responses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (3rd nomination). Too often dialogue between nominator and !voter becomes an unproductive mire of accusations; I appreciate your respectfully pointing out the shortcomings in my argument. Clearly WP:BLP had slipped my mind. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
[1] Can I suggest you remove your edit mentioning this case. @ Drmies: W C M email 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe WCM is right here. The number of people who have accepted citizenship is a complicated question to effectively discuss for reasons we can do nothing about. It is 3/4/5 depending on how you count. But sourcing is complicated by external factors. Whatever language you care to propose re: rarity is fine by me. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Do you think there is any point re-submitting the RfC on that page with a revised question, as you mentioned earlier? -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Guy, I wondered if you could take a look re: the discussion I began here. Thanks a lot. Sxologist ( talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I prefer to avoid an edit war as much as you seem to be, I'm going to explain the reasons for the links I've added to the Canopy express article that you seem to dismiss as merely fanpages. Those sites have more detail that can benefit the article. The Stovebolt page is more geared towards the Chevrolet models, but it's not without worthy material. The one from "Brad's 1941-46 Chevy Trucks" had three different weight classes; 1/2 ton (3107), 1 ton (3807), and 1 1/2 ton (4107). However the page is dead and for some reason can't be archived, therefore I've hidden that link, until something new can replace it. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to formally object to your inappropriate close of the Parasite (film) MR. The RM closer found the Support side to be based in policy much better than Oppose. That’s subjective but it’s not a super vote. It’s doing their job per every applicable policy and guideline. For the MR closer to second-guess the RM-closer’s evaluation of the RM arguments based on policy is inappropriate. But what makes this outrageous is that the RM Closer explained how they arrived at their evaluation in much clearer terms than did you in closing the MR. Accordingly, I request that you reverse or at least revert your close of this MR. — В²C ☎ 00:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
More specifically, you assert without basis, “ the guidelines do conflict”. Please identify which guidelines applicable to this proposal you believe conflict and explain how they conflict. To make this assertion in your MR close, fundamental to your decision, without identifying/explaining accordingly, is just another example of what’s wrong with your close. But doing it now, better late than never, if you can, would be helpful. But what would be better is to realize there is no such conflict, as Sceptre clearly explained in the close you overturned, and reverse your decision accordingly. Thank you. — В²C ☎ 00:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Having endorsed Sceptre's closure, I agree with В²C. There was no consensus at the MRV, so the closure really should have been endorsed. Please understand that the fact that you are an admin and a trusted editor is important to me, and yet your MRV closure was a supervote (or maybe a mega-supervote?); you did call it a "judgement call", so how is that different? Your speedy response would be appreciated. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I just want to add that I just noticed the MRV was still quite active today when it closed after only one week, and, I, for one, would like to participate. MRVs are often for weeks. What was the hurry on this one? — В²C ☎ 04:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
[2] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I recently replied to your proposal on Talk:Kyiv. Shortly thereafter Talk:Kyiv was edit protected from non-usernamed editors until Sep 30. Shortly after that, K.e.coffman removed my comment (supposedly accidnetally, as in their edit comment they only mentioned they are removing the re-organizing under one header of post-RM clean up, that I previously did). Since then I have asked K.e.coffman to restore my comment, but he just ignored me and did not do so.
I still stand by my reply to your proposal and think it is a useful contribution to that discussion. Since it was you, whome I was adressing my reply, I am asking how else can I get my reply reinstated?:
You suggestion would be appreciated.-- 67.175.201.50 ( talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Jzg. I am not trying to promote her book, the book was written years ago. I have just been trying to update the page as it's been years. The book itself isn't getting an article, but I believe that the book is a notable portion of her career. My main issue with your deletions were the removal of the TED talks, and the conference in Mexico. The links are simply to provide evidence that they occurred, not for promotional purposes. If the issues are with the source, I'd like to find better sources, not remove the sourced information. Anyways, I hope that clears things up some. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.