![]() | This 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. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
Hey Ritchie, I was wondering if you could look into this albums page, an IP has repeatedly been claiming that this was a mixtape then they later claimed it as a compilation album. The sources listed on the page all call this an studio album. The IP sent me a message on my talk page and I have also sent them a warning. Thanks! Pillowdelight ( talk) 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:COPYVIOEL <<If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it>>. and per WP:COPYVIO <<Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to>>, I had to clean the sources at this article [2]. As you are the main author on that page, you shouldn't have let or included these links leading to a fan site which reproduces copyright material, in this case scans of the UK press without any authorization. Are you the one whom had included these links to this fan site with these articles? If it is the case and you have also done this elsewhere on wikipedia, you need to make a clean up at those other articles. I'll take a look at your contributions because as I told user:Johnbod who dared to cancel my contributions @ Van der Graaf Generator [3], this lack of knowledge concerning our rules is extremely weird coming from longtime contributors and shall I say worrying. Woovee ( talk) 04:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/4/22709575/facebook-outage-instagram-whatsapp This could be useful for improving the article. wizzito | say hello! 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I consider the introduction of the section to be the B, and my removal to be the R. I've also commented on the talk page already, which is the D. ──post by kenny2wiki ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
...to remind you of that email I sent a few weeks ago. Hope you're well, Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
You were the closing administrator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaskan husky. I am now reviewing Draft:Alaskan husky. The question for you is, primarily, was the reason for the merger, which is a form of deletion, quality of sources, or was it notability? I see that some of the editors think that the draft should be accepted. Second, do you have any recommendations or comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Majura Parkway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, this is to inform you that there's no point in letting the Hotel Okura Amsterdam redirecting to Ciel Bleu stand anymore, and this decision (from 2015) needs to be reversed. Reasonably, the hotel's article could have been edited using text translated from its Dutch-language equivalent (and such an action could have been done earlier, or instead of the merger). I must ask you (the editor who proposed this action in late 2015) why an action like this was even performed at all? Consensus can change at anytime, and I agree with what the three editors who posted on the hotel's talkpage five years ago stated. I don't think there are any other cases of a hotel's article not existing, but a property/facility within it does, and the article for said hotel is just a redirect to that property/facility's article. Jim856796 ( talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I objected to your PROD of that article, but it doesn't look like a regular PROD - |you created an AfD for it. I'm not sure whether that's policy or not, as I'm fairly new, but I'd rather let you know about my objection. LenaAvrelia ( talk) 11:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey sorry about that PROD for 2021 Southend West by-election, someone had changed your legitimate comment on the PROD to an obviously invalid rationale and I didn't notice. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Carlos, The Exterminating Angel came in and posted a complaint about DrKay. I haven't reviewed it in detail. Neutralhomer then started to have a tantrum about DrKay, which hijacked the original discussion, and you had to partially block him. It seems that he then went into more of a rage on his talk page, and another admin had to block him indefinitely without talk page access. Yuck. I am still not sure what the original issue, and whether there was any substance to it. Neutralhomer just sort of committed public wiki-suicide, which is unpleasant. The admins did what the admins had to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie, I know you are only trying to diminish heat in a conversation, but this edit I object to, why are you acting like a censor? He has a right to free speech. I'm sick of that being violated on the web nowadays.† Encyclopædius 10:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A longer clarification, I was unaware of the redaction until now since as I said at that ANI, my practice is generally to say my bit and then mostly avoid the discussion to avoid getting drawn into long back and forths which help no one.
As I said in that discussion, the ultimate focus surely has to be on the encyclopaedia and readers, hence why I feel any "free speech" concerns are missing the point, even if we interpret the term more liberally to mean that we should allow frank and mostly uncontrolled discussion as the best way to resolve problems and come to an understanding in the world. It's fine to say there should be places on the internet where such discussion should be allowed, but it shouldn't be Wikipedia since our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. (In other words, even if you say you're concerned about restrictions at Reddit or Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or whatever with far more open ended goals, that doesn't apply here.)
My view is that we tend to molly-coddle editors too much here at times especially when they do enough good work. While we should have bounds of civility and NPA, we also can and should make it clear in no uncertain terms to an editor when their behaviour is crossing the line. (Funnily enough, a number of those editors we molly-coddle are those who's problems is frequently crossing the NPA/civility line.) This is best coming from editors who are "friends" (for lack of better word) of the editor, as far to often when an editor clearly does something wrong, such editors tend to offer a lot of support which is fine when an editor may be feeling down, but never at any stage even later make it sufficiently clear their behaviour was wrong and shouldn't be repeated.
This tends to lead to these editors continually repeating their poor behaviour until eventually it leads to blocks and probably finally a long term maybe forever indefinite. Which is sad for Wikipedia, since we would be better if these editors sufficiently improved that this didn't need to happen. Still it's happened many times before and sadly is going to happen many times again. Now there's no guarantee people making it clearer to an editor is going to change how they behave, perhaps it will even make it worse. And in truth comments coming from editors who aren't friends (and in this case I'm in that category) already do happen and are less likely to help still we can only try.
However my judgment was I wasn't convinced this had sufficiently happened for Neutralhomer yet, so I left my comment and still feel it was for the best. Others disagree, whatever. Ultimately if Neutralhomer doesn't reform that's on them, not Ritchie333. Wikipedia would be a better place if Neutralhomer reformed and stayed, but if they eventually became one of those many editors who don't and get banned for it, then so be it. I feel I left enough other comments to make it clear anyway plus I suspect Neutralhomer has read it and the redaction is IMO only likely to have a limited impact on whether it contributes to convincing Neutralhomer to change.
So ultimately it's very unlikely it matters in the grand scheme of things hence why IMO it's pointless worrying about it. The benefit to our readers is only any part it plays in convincing Neutralhomer to change. I mean you could say there's a minor chance it may convince others, including future readers, to change which is where the redaction may harm but IMO for a single random comment in the middle of a long discussion, the chance of that is very low.
The problem is Ritchie, when you have the power to decide what somebody can and can't say, where does it stop? I see editors say things all the time on here which are far worse than any sweary attack, real psychological bullying or wearing down an editor steadily by interfering over time but never get warned because it doesn't technically violate WP:CIVIL. It seems wrong to me that you can remove something like that but keep those niggling comments which really get under an editor's skin, often to the pointing of quitting Wikipedia. Trump deserved to be banned from Twitter in my opinion, but there's thousands of trolls who should be banned too but are still there.† Encyclopædius 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I wish admins had the same flair for "stopping things from escalating" when it comes to stopping the real problems on the site, like the infobox wars....† Encyclopædius 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
politically correctwould feature prominently in those complaints. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
transgender topicat least has been discussed regularly, by a very large number of editors. It isn't an area where the state of policy has depended on an unrepresentative cabal. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed many of the community have taken the "let's not offend anybody" stance. Today's Wikipedia, to be sure. GoodDay ( talk) 22:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
let's not offend anybodystance. Your comment here smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than it does an opinion based on evidence. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesha811 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
On 27 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Facebook outage, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that their outage on October 4, 2021, also cut off Facebook's internal communications, preventing employees from sending or receiving external emails or logging in to Zoom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Facebook outage. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 Facebook outage), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
You won't want to miss this one! Andrew🐉( talk) 12:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent DYK review of Sherita Hill Golden but I dont understand why you struck the main hook. You may not like it but thats not a good reason. I think it much more interesting and true to the source than the rather obvious connection between depression and diabetes which I am fairly sure she did not discover. Could you please unstrike please. Let the picker pick. If you have to strike one then please remove alt1. Victuallers ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
tags in the article, which I should have done. In particular, a source is required for "As Vice Chair for the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins Golden established evidence-based practises for diabetes care and the Journeys in Medicine speaker series, which became a major civic engagement initiative.", and I'm not sure where I'd start looking for one.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)How about this, guys and gals..... last Wednesday in Stockholm, postponed for a year and a half... and complete with Guy Evans on drums! Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I am disturbed that you would close an AfD with this sort of comment: "Consensus is that WP:GNG trumps WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF."
NFF is part of
Wikipedia:Notability (films), where the opening paragraph states "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article. For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the
general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film."
Comments and !votes on a single AfD should never "trump" currently written policy and guidelines. Platonk ( talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Valerie Broussard at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Drmies (
talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I'm staying well out of the ongoing issue at ANI wrt Davidson, I don't want to pile-on really, and I've loved avoiding (mostly) drama lately. But it feels a little optimistic to suggest that getting him to "change his approach" or whatever, at the ANI listing is going to suddenly transform the discussion. AD's a clever guy, he knows all to well what he coulda/shoulda/woulda done, without your advice to change his "tact (sic)". I admire your encouragement, but I also think it's somewhat misplaced on this occasion, and perhaps even promotes a hope, where hope simply doesn't exist in this case. In any case, I thought you'd appreciate that I'm watching 24 Hour Party People and that's making my Monday a better evening than reading more of that depressing thread. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 120 | ← | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | → | Archive 130 |
Hey Ritchie, I was wondering if you could look into this albums page, an IP has repeatedly been claiming that this was a mixtape then they later claimed it as a compilation album. The sources listed on the page all call this an studio album. The IP sent me a message on my talk page and I have also sent them a warning. Thanks! Pillowdelight ( talk) 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:COPYVIOEL <<If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it>>. and per WP:COPYVIO <<Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to>>, I had to clean the sources at this article [2]. As you are the main author on that page, you shouldn't have let or included these links leading to a fan site which reproduces copyright material, in this case scans of the UK press without any authorization. Are you the one whom had included these links to this fan site with these articles? If it is the case and you have also done this elsewhere on wikipedia, you need to make a clean up at those other articles. I'll take a look at your contributions because as I told user:Johnbod who dared to cancel my contributions @ Van der Graaf Generator [3], this lack of knowledge concerning our rules is extremely weird coming from longtime contributors and shall I say worrying. Woovee ( talk) 04:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/4/22709575/facebook-outage-instagram-whatsapp This could be useful for improving the article. wizzito | say hello! 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I consider the introduction of the section to be the B, and my removal to be the R. I've also commented on the talk page already, which is the D. ──post by kenny2wiki ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
...to remind you of that email I sent a few weeks ago. Hope you're well, Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
You were the closing administrator on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaskan husky. I am now reviewing Draft:Alaskan husky. The question for you is, primarily, was the reason for the merger, which is a form of deletion, quality of sources, or was it notability? I see that some of the editors think that the draft should be accepted. Second, do you have any recommendations or comments? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Majura Parkway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Street station 1920.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, this is to inform you that there's no point in letting the Hotel Okura Amsterdam redirecting to Ciel Bleu stand anymore, and this decision (from 2015) needs to be reversed. Reasonably, the hotel's article could have been edited using text translated from its Dutch-language equivalent (and such an action could have been done earlier, or instead of the merger). I must ask you (the editor who proposed this action in late 2015) why an action like this was even performed at all? Consensus can change at anytime, and I agree with what the three editors who posted on the hotel's talkpage five years ago stated. I don't think there are any other cases of a hotel's article not existing, but a property/facility within it does, and the article for said hotel is just a redirect to that property/facility's article. Jim856796 ( talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I objected to your PROD of that article, but it doesn't look like a regular PROD - |you created an AfD for it. I'm not sure whether that's policy or not, as I'm fairly new, but I'd rather let you know about my objection. LenaAvrelia ( talk) 11:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey sorry about that PROD for 2021 Southend West by-election, someone had changed your legitimate comment on the PROD to an obviously invalid rationale and I didn't notice. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Carlos, The Exterminating Angel came in and posted a complaint about DrKay. I haven't reviewed it in detail. Neutralhomer then started to have a tantrum about DrKay, which hijacked the original discussion, and you had to partially block him. It seems that he then went into more of a rage on his talk page, and another admin had to block him indefinitely without talk page access. Yuck. I am still not sure what the original issue, and whether there was any substance to it. Neutralhomer just sort of committed public wiki-suicide, which is unpleasant. The admins did what the admins had to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie, I know you are only trying to diminish heat in a conversation, but this edit I object to, why are you acting like a censor? He has a right to free speech. I'm sick of that being violated on the web nowadays.† Encyclopædius 10:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
A longer clarification, I was unaware of the redaction until now since as I said at that ANI, my practice is generally to say my bit and then mostly avoid the discussion to avoid getting drawn into long back and forths which help no one.
As I said in that discussion, the ultimate focus surely has to be on the encyclopaedia and readers, hence why I feel any "free speech" concerns are missing the point, even if we interpret the term more liberally to mean that we should allow frank and mostly uncontrolled discussion as the best way to resolve problems and come to an understanding in the world. It's fine to say there should be places on the internet where such discussion should be allowed, but it shouldn't be Wikipedia since our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. (In other words, even if you say you're concerned about restrictions at Reddit or Twitter or Facebook or YouTube or whatever with far more open ended goals, that doesn't apply here.)
My view is that we tend to molly-coddle editors too much here at times especially when they do enough good work. While we should have bounds of civility and NPA, we also can and should make it clear in no uncertain terms to an editor when their behaviour is crossing the line. (Funnily enough, a number of those editors we molly-coddle are those who's problems is frequently crossing the NPA/civility line.) This is best coming from editors who are "friends" (for lack of better word) of the editor, as far to often when an editor clearly does something wrong, such editors tend to offer a lot of support which is fine when an editor may be feeling down, but never at any stage even later make it sufficiently clear their behaviour was wrong and shouldn't be repeated.
This tends to lead to these editors continually repeating their poor behaviour until eventually it leads to blocks and probably finally a long term maybe forever indefinite. Which is sad for Wikipedia, since we would be better if these editors sufficiently improved that this didn't need to happen. Still it's happened many times before and sadly is going to happen many times again. Now there's no guarantee people making it clearer to an editor is going to change how they behave, perhaps it will even make it worse. And in truth comments coming from editors who aren't friends (and in this case I'm in that category) already do happen and are less likely to help still we can only try.
However my judgment was I wasn't convinced this had sufficiently happened for Neutralhomer yet, so I left my comment and still feel it was for the best. Others disagree, whatever. Ultimately if Neutralhomer doesn't reform that's on them, not Ritchie333. Wikipedia would be a better place if Neutralhomer reformed and stayed, but if they eventually became one of those many editors who don't and get banned for it, then so be it. I feel I left enough other comments to make it clear anyway plus I suspect Neutralhomer has read it and the redaction is IMO only likely to have a limited impact on whether it contributes to convincing Neutralhomer to change.
So ultimately it's very unlikely it matters in the grand scheme of things hence why IMO it's pointless worrying about it. The benefit to our readers is only any part it plays in convincing Neutralhomer to change. I mean you could say there's a minor chance it may convince others, including future readers, to change which is where the redaction may harm but IMO for a single random comment in the middle of a long discussion, the chance of that is very low.
The problem is Ritchie, when you have the power to decide what somebody can and can't say, where does it stop? I see editors say things all the time on here which are far worse than any sweary attack, real psychological bullying or wearing down an editor steadily by interfering over time but never get warned because it doesn't technically violate WP:CIVIL. It seems wrong to me that you can remove something like that but keep those niggling comments which really get under an editor's skin, often to the pointing of quitting Wikipedia. Trump deserved to be banned from Twitter in my opinion, but there's thousands of trolls who should be banned too but are still there.† Encyclopædius 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I wish admins had the same flair for "stopping things from escalating" when it comes to stopping the real problems on the site, like the infobox wars....† Encyclopædius 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
politically correctwould feature prominently in those complaints. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
transgender topicat least has been discussed regularly, by a very large number of editors. It isn't an area where the state of policy has depended on an unrepresentative cabal. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed many of the community have taken the "let's not offend anybody" stance. Today's Wikipedia, to be sure. GoodDay ( talk) 22:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
let's not offend anybodystance. Your comment here smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than it does an opinion based on evidence. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesha811 ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
On 27 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Facebook outage, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that their outage on October 4, 2021, also cut off Facebook's internal communications, preventing employees from sending or receiving external emails or logging in to Zoom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Facebook outage. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 Facebook outage), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
You won't want to miss this one! Andrew🐉( talk) 12:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the recent DYK review of Sherita Hill Golden but I dont understand why you struck the main hook. You may not like it but thats not a good reason. I think it much more interesting and true to the source than the rather obvious connection between depression and diabetes which I am fairly sure she did not discover. Could you please unstrike please. Let the picker pick. If you have to strike one then please remove alt1. Victuallers ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
tags in the article, which I should have done. In particular, a source is required for "As Vice Chair for the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins Golden established evidence-based practises for diabetes care and the Journeys in Medicine speaker series, which became a major civic engagement initiative.", and I'm not sure where I'd start looking for one.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)How about this, guys and gals..... last Wednesday in Stockholm, postponed for a year and a half... and complete with Guy Evans on drums! Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I am disturbed that you would close an AfD with this sort of comment: "Consensus is that WP:GNG trumps WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF."
NFF is part of
Wikipedia:Notability (films), where the opening paragraph states "The notability guideline for film-related articles is a standard for deciding if a film-related topic can have its own article. For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the
general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film."
Comments and !votes on a single AfD should never "trump" currently written policy and guidelines. Platonk ( talk) 19:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Valerie Broussard at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Drmies (
talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, I'm staying well out of the ongoing issue at ANI wrt Davidson, I don't want to pile-on really, and I've loved avoiding (mostly) drama lately. But it feels a little optimistic to suggest that getting him to "change his approach" or whatever, at the ANI listing is going to suddenly transform the discussion. AD's a clever guy, he knows all to well what he coulda/shoulda/woulda done, without your advice to change his "tact (sic)". I admire your encouragement, but I also think it's somewhat misplaced on this occasion, and perhaps even promotes a hope, where hope simply doesn't exist in this case. In any case, I thought you'd appreciate that I'm watching 24 Hour Party People and that's making my Monday a better evening than reading more of that depressing thread. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)