This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January 2016 to July 2021. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
Your recent editing history at Sir George Young, 6th Baronet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The postnominal "Bt" is not used when the baronet is also a peer. I notice you've made several edits recently that include this error. Opera hat ( talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
Thanks for adding the styles sections to various nobility articles. I'd just like to point out to you that per MOS:DATERANGE, year ranges are separated by an endash (–), not a hyphen (-).
Thank you.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and HandsomeFella's talk page.
Hi! Thanks for your edits of the article on Lord Porter. I just wanted to point out that in England & Wales at least (apparently it's not the case in New Zealand) judges drop the QC after name upon appointment to the bench. Many thanks again for your edits!
Atchom ( talk) 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I was slightly perplexed by your 12:47 15 February edit on British Government frontbench page. The rank of the posts that they were appointed to had been kept in the previous edits and I don't understand the logic behind not having the ministers in rank order (so Secretary of State, Minister of State, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State). Please enlighten me regarding this matter.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and BlueD954's talk page here and here.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I guess @ Sgarvey: is going to ignore everybody & not respond to anyone at his talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, I noticed your recent edit to restore the infobox on Antony Blinken, and I thought it would be helpful if you would also express your views at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Antony Blinken & co. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
I added an "s" to his last name, since it was spelled wrong. And you accuse me of vandalism. How dare you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.255.119 ( talk) 02:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I checked the edit history He did not vandalize you karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWaffle! ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Mo Brooks.
Howdy. It's too bad, that the infobox at Blinken is being kept different from the other Biden cabinet nominees :( GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm excited to help out with whatever I can. Masterofpresidents ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cameroon Under Paul Biya Joins Iran Nicaragua North Korea Syria and Venezuela as a Rouge State Because they Restrict Human Rights on its own People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:247:F900:7C6E:E62D:92BC:CFC0 ( talk) 16:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Rogue state.
Hi, I would like to explain that every chromebook in my school has the same IP address, and that it's likely that only one person actually made the unconstructive edits, and no one else actually did anything. 107.181.16.42 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at River valley civilization.
Hello. You reverted my edit to Blackstone Group - following their PR team previously reverting the edits. Blackstone have a history of paying Wikipedia editors to manage their listing and remove anything they don't like.
May I ask you to check this https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-colleagues-examine-role-of-private-equity-firm-blackstone-in-deforestation-of-amazon-rainforest
This topic is not a "controversy" - this is not some celebrity's latest plastic surgery.
Further I will quote Wikipedia user Grayfell from the Blackstone talk page: "All of this is in the larger context of climate change. This is encyclopedically significant because deforesting the Amazon is a direct threat to human welfare, so this should also be at least clearly indicated or directly mentioned."
I will be restoring the edits and if you have any further comments you are welcome to discuss on my talk page or the article talk page. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit and its reversion at The Blackstone Group. Reply made at Talk:The Blackstone Group per editor's stated preference. Pertinent information can be found at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
… Karen :) Hope you have a wonderful holiday season (if you celebrate any or all of the relevant holidays!) and a wonderful new year. It's been great working with you these past few months. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi you commented that an edited to Aksel Rykkvins Wikipedia seemed strange and not neutral? I am not sure why you think this . Aksel has been studying singing with Matthew Mark Marriott each week since early 2019 . Matthew is now Aksels main teacher. So it seemed natural for this important update to be included . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.147.58 ( talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Aksel Rykkvin.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Mz7 ( talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Adem Jashari edits are not my "preferred" version. Wikipedia is full of edited propaganda and his page is a hot spot for Serbs to commit their brainwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 ( talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The only survivor was Besarta Jashari, Hamëz Jashari's daughter. She claimed that the policemen had "threatened her with a knife and ordered her to say that her uncle (Adem Jashari) had killed everyone who wanted to surrender."Given that what you're saying is in agreement with that, I am baffled that you would remove the passage. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Adem Jashari.
"In general, when communicating with others, you should use one of the previous options and not only a timestamp". Giant Snowman 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at GiantSnowman's talk page.
Half an hour isn't really too early, and their terms expire today in any event. And if it isn't really settled law at what exact minute they expire, it's hardly inaccurate.-- Killuminator ( talk) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In all statutes, orders, rules, and regulations relating to the time of performance of any act ... it shall be understood and intended that the time shall insofar as practicable ... be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed; 4 U.S.C. § 72 make it clear that
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that editors will jump the proverbial gun, but just because it is occurring on other pages doesn't make it right. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself in response to this edit.
I updated the Eyak language page to have the proper endonym for the language: dAxhunhyuuga’. Iyaq is an exonym, not the native name. See here (page 11) and here. Please undo your removal of the edit. 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 ( talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Eyak language.
Hi,
You removed my changes on the page Symbiosis. I did not provide a new reference as the references already there are actually saying what I wrote. They had been badly summarized before, it was confusing. You can check this by reading the references. Also, what I wrote is on this wikipedia page already: check Cell nucleus, under Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.83.72 ( talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Symbiosis.
Just visited your page and saw your userbox. As it happens, it's my real-life birthday—an amusing coincidence :) AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Great job your doing Phillypaboy123 ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. FASTILY 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A ( talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here; parallel discussions took place at Talk:Lara Trump and at ANI.
Indeed, her resignation from the US Senate doesn't take effect until Noon EST, on 18 January 2021. But, trying to make that stick, is like spitting up against the Niagara Falls. GoodDay ( talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, I just wanted to drop a quick thank-you for closing the RFC finally. I know it was probably quite a bit to read through; I never imagined when I filed it that I'd wind up so personally and abusively attacked just for filing a required procedure. IHateAccounts ( talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
With this close you accuse "many editors" of extending criticism to the proposer. Can you name them and/or point to their edits? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
jerk [them]selves off to the accomplishment [...]and others who called it a waste of time when RfCs are required to deprecate sources. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements.That means that where editors believe the source to be de facto deprecated, that does not preclude going through the formal deprecation process. If you wish to take my future closures of RfCs up to a higher authority, you will be well within your rights to do so. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
The article on 116th Congress does not include the former President and President Pro Tempore. That is why Pence's information is removed. Jusfiq ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was following my message at Jusfiq's talk page.
I respectfully disagree with your reasoning on eliminating "coalition" from the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress. If you look at the page for the 110th United States Congress, you'll see that it does have the Senate majority listed as a Democratic (coalition). We need to be consistent. Either we add "coalition" to the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress, or we eliminate "coalition" from the 110th United States Congress. It's important to note the Democratic caucus' majorities for both congressional sessions were predicated upon the same conditions: Democrats did not have enough seats to constitute a majority in and of themselves; their "majority" was only made possible with two Independent senators agreeing to align with their caucus. Therefore, I would argue that the majority caucuses in the 110th and 117th Congresses is and were truly multiparty coalitions. Wxstorm ( talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was following my message at Wxstorm's talk page.
Hi, I work for Blackstone. I see you were recently active at the Blackstone article and appear to have a good sense of how to apply the NPOV policy. Can you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray#Some edit requests regarding whether the Controversies section consists of a WP:COATRACK or not? Thank you, ThomasClements Blackstone ( talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no government link. one is broken and the other doesn't mention Jaffna as a twin city. I suggest you to look carefully at the citations. YaSiRu11 ( talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
a signing ceremony to twin Kingston with Jaffna, a district in the northern province of Sri Lanka.The Surrey Comet states:
[As the] country prepares to sever its ties with the European Union, Kingston has found itself a new Asian partner in the form of the Sri Lankan city Jaffna. Kingston Council has announced it is twinning with the city in a bid to build “greater understanding and sharing knowledge” in areas of governance, healthcare and education.I do not understand where the confusion is, as it is quite clear that it has been twinned. Even if the government link had been broken beyond repair, the newspaper source would have sufficed. Please revert your own edit. Sdrqaz ( talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible.See Wikipedia:Link rot and Help:Archiving a source. I suspect that you have quite a few contributions where you removed information simply because the link was dead and would advise you to go back and do so, so that valuable information is not lost from Wikipedia. Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Jaffna District.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 12 that did not include a direct source.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.
All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.
All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.
Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, On the page where I can see my edit count, I noticed a category called User Group (which is empty in my case). Could you tell me what those are and how I can become a member? Best wishes Lev21 ( talk) 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz. I noticed that you've started a draft at Draft:Shadow docket. This is a topic that interests me as well, and if you would like, I would be happy to help flesh out the draft and get it into mainspace. I don't want to step on your toes, however, as it seems like you have a plan for writing the article already, so I'd also be happy to step back and let you take the lead. All the best, Mz7 ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, but I would not describe my contribution to that discussion as at all elegant! Thryduulf ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my !vote at WP:VPPOL, which was building on this !vote by Thryduulf.
I'm surprised something like that's been on your mind for a while but don't worry about it, it's all good. I learned something new in the process too. I didn't feel slighted by the phrasing at the time, I understood what you meant after a back and forth talk so I didn't think badly of the intended or unintended tone behind it. -- Killuminator ( talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself a follow-up to this message. A related conversation can be found here.
I believe that the addition of the reference was an attempt at self promotion of one of the authors of the article.By looking at the history of that article you can see that the reference was unnecessary. This is not the first time that Andreas( https://andreasplagiarism.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/andreas-theodorou-committed-plagiarism-in-his-phd-thesis/) has attempted to unnecessarily insert his name on AI articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindpit ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at Explainable artificial intelligence.
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Congrats on being in the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers this month. Great job. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC) |
I'm not sure how to insert Scott Mann into British Government frontbench, can you help?
BlueD954 ( talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to appologize for making my prank edit on Joe Manchins page and wasting your time having to review it and revert it back. I am sure that is as annoying to you as it was unneccesary for me to do. Enjoy your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B143:D99C:201F:102B:8CDF:E8D ( talk) 21:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to these edits at Joe Manchin. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
I think this is the best source for the article British government frontbench. Do update if you like cause it is outdated. 2401:7400:4009:6801:5CDD:2E5:A65D:6271 ( talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Zeki Alasya best turkish actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZekiAlasyaMetinAkpinar ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Pertinent information can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stepgilara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. An associated edit from a similarly-named editor ( Zekialasyametinakpinarrr) can be found here. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.
Hi, I saw your post on the AWB talk page. Do you have an example of what you are looking for? What you might want to search for? I have some methods of getting around some AWB limitations. If anything comes of this discussion we can post on the AWB page. Regards, Neils51 ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"]]"
and changing it to 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish']]{{-"}}
.My two issues are this:
''
into '"
), searching for QWQ violations would throw up a lot of perfectly-valid uses of bold and italic. Searching the rendered text wouldn't have the same problem, as Ctrl-F doesn't look for things like italics. As I said at
WT:AWB, I'm using a pretty conservative program so fewer false positives are thrown up, but that also means "true" positives are falling through the cracks."[['Scuse
to {{"-}}[['Scuse
, but ignored [['Scuse
in
§ Episodes despite that creating the same rendered text. That's due to {{
#invoke:Episode list|sublist}} (I think, or at least one of the modules) wrapping every episode title with inverted commas.Note: Conversation was in response to my question at WT:AWB.
Dear Sdrqaz. Thank you for your welcome message. I hope you have a good day to. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate the assist at DYK. I've added sources to the nomination form. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again! 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this Did You Know nomination.
Sorry about my commentary on "True and the Rainbow Kingdom" I know I was being honest about the show, but instead it was un-encylopedic and didn't conform to Wikipedia's standards. 😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸 Sorry about the laughing kitties. I definitely WAS NOT MOCKING YOU.
~meow~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.116.200 ( talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at True and the Rainbow Kingdom.
For reverting edits at Manoj Chauhan. If it keeps up, I'll log a page protection request. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this reversion and this restoration at Manoj Chauhan.
Hi (I don't know your name),
I wish you had not called out a page I was using to experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books.
I am not angry :-)
But I am disappointed.
Take care,
- Mark Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.101.165 ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books? Wikipedia isn't a webhost, after all. Given that the information was taken directly from the books, the data from the pages you lost is still available on Google Books and should be retrievable. Sdrqaz ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this message at Markjgraham hmb's talk page and to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 22.
Sdrqaz, thanks again for offering to review this request to update the article to be more like the draft I've shared here. Happy to address any concerns with the proposed update, MS rep 4 NMorris ( talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I've posted a final request for the Nate Morris article about the Politics section. You've been so helpful reviewing this draft, so I hope you're able to take a look at the last two requests. Thanks again! MS rep 4 NMorris ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Sdrqaz. RfA is an incredibly stressful experience. I don't see that you've run one under this user name, but it's not something that needs extra questions. From the point of view of someone who hasn't run one, it's hard to understand how stressful every extra question can be. It's 24/7 for an entire week, and it can go horribly wrong. Unless your question actually is necessary for you to make a decision, it's actively harmful to the process IMO. —valereee ( talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
incredibly stressfulevent, and naturally my ability to put myself in the candidate's shoes is limited. I think in light of recent events, the community is well aware that RfAs
can go horribly wrong. However, just as I believe that badgering opposers is rarely helpful, haranguing !voters who ask what you may consider stupid questions isn't that helpful either, especially when the question has been answered and the candidate has professed (perhaps vi coactus) that they were happy to answer the question. If I'm completely frank, that feels like sticky behaviour, given that it's easy to dismiss it as moot.I agree that questions should be
necessary for you to make a decision, but people make decisions in strange ways and I'm ready to assume that they're not just trolling for the sake of it. Perhaps I'm naïve: I suspect that most others would have probably reverted the above message as trolling. Just as how being an administrator isn't just about memorising all the policies, questions at RfA aren't just about policy knowledge – they're also about trying to get a feel for the candidate and their temperament and !voters have strange ways of trying to suss that out. Having been unfamiliar with many of our recent RfA candidates, I'm a little more sympathetic to those strange methods. You probably disagree with me: like I said, we probably have opposing views on adminship and RfAs. But that's fine. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
good way to raise [my] own profileor
just feeding [my] own egos/want[ing] to hear [my] voice. I asked, well, because I was curious what the candidate thought and why.As for the question in the current RfA, on the surface I can put it down to just curiosity. People want to know why administrators chose their usernames (see here and here –
asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable). On a more cynical level, a bureaucrat once told me that !voters look for candidates that aren't too deletionist or too inclusionist, aren't too exopedianist or too metapedianist, and have certainly opposed for those reasons. I can't read the !voter's mind, but perhaps that was part of the reason why the question was asked. Maybe the !voter wanted to know if the candidate was more eventualist or immediatist or what their general philosophical views are ( this RfA has a lot on such views).As for what I think is the optimal approach, I don't have the perfect answer. My own approach (letting the candidate disregard any questions they don't want to answer) is a probably a little too laissez-faire for you, as you're a lot more invested in RfA reform than I am. If that path is unacceptable (as I assume it is), perhaps just prodding the questioner once would suffice. If the questioner gets it, great! If not, well maybe a seed has been planted for the future. Disengage. Trying to ram the point home may just cause the proverbial seed to be destroyed beyond repair and may only cause more drama. Some people take pleasure from being contrarian and that may become more likely as a result. Sdrqaz ( talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD 2, specifically Q5 and the ensuing discussion.
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January 2016 to July 2021. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January 2016 to July 2021. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
Your recent editing history at Sir George Young, 6th Baronet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The postnominal "Bt" is not used when the baronet is also a peer. I notice you've made several edits recently that include this error. Opera hat ( talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
Thanks for adding the styles sections to various nobility articles. I'd just like to point out to you that per MOS:DATERANGE, year ranges are separated by an endash (–), not a hyphen (-).
Thank you.
HandsomeFella ( talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and HandsomeFella's talk page.
Hi! Thanks for your edits of the article on Lord Porter. I just wanted to point out that in England & Wales at least (apparently it's not the case in New Zealand) judges drop the QC after name upon appointment to the bench. Many thanks again for your edits!
Atchom ( talk) 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I was slightly perplexed by your 12:47 15 February edit on British Government frontbench page. The rank of the posts that they were appointed to had been kept in the previous edits and I don't understand the logic behind not having the ministers in rank order (so Secretary of State, Minister of State, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State). Please enlighten me regarding this matter.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and BlueD954's talk page here and here.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. I guess @ Sgarvey: is going to ignore everybody & not respond to anyone at his talkpage. GoodDay ( talk) 20:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, I noticed your recent edit to restore the infobox on Antony Blinken, and I thought it would be helpful if you would also express your views at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Antony Blinken & co. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
I added an "s" to his last name, since it was spelled wrong. And you accuse me of vandalism. How dare you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.255.119 ( talk) 02:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I checked the edit history He did not vandalize you karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWaffle! ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Mo Brooks.
Howdy. It's too bad, that the infobox at Blinken is being kept different from the other Biden cabinet nominees :( GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm excited to help out with whatever I can. Masterofpresidents ( talk) 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cameroon Under Paul Biya Joins Iran Nicaragua North Korea Syria and Venezuela as a Rouge State Because they Restrict Human Rights on its own People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:247:F900:7C6E:E62D:92BC:CFC0 ( talk) 16:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Rogue state.
Hi, I would like to explain that every chromebook in my school has the same IP address, and that it's likely that only one person actually made the unconstructive edits, and no one else actually did anything. 107.181.16.42 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at River valley civilization.
Hello. You reverted my edit to Blackstone Group - following their PR team previously reverting the edits. Blackstone have a history of paying Wikipedia editors to manage their listing and remove anything they don't like.
May I ask you to check this https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-colleagues-examine-role-of-private-equity-firm-blackstone-in-deforestation-of-amazon-rainforest
This topic is not a "controversy" - this is not some celebrity's latest plastic surgery.
Further I will quote Wikipedia user Grayfell from the Blackstone talk page: "All of this is in the larger context of climate change. This is encyclopedically significant because deforesting the Amazon is a direct threat to human welfare, so this should also be at least clearly indicated or directly mentioned."
I will be restoring the edits and if you have any further comments you are welcome to discuss on my talk page or the article talk page. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit and its reversion at The Blackstone Group. Reply made at Talk:The Blackstone Group per editor's stated preference. Pertinent information can be found at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
… Karen :) Hope you have a wonderful holiday season (if you celebrate any or all of the relevant holidays!) and a wonderful new year. It's been great working with you these past few months. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi you commented that an edited to Aksel Rykkvins Wikipedia seemed strange and not neutral? I am not sure why you think this . Aksel has been studying singing with Matthew Mark Marriott each week since early 2019 . Matthew is now Aksels main teacher. So it seemed natural for this important update to be included . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.147.58 ( talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Aksel Rykkvin.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Mz7 ( talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Adem Jashari edits are not my "preferred" version. Wikipedia is full of edited propaganda and his page is a hot spot for Serbs to commit their brainwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 ( talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The only survivor was Besarta Jashari, Hamëz Jashari's daughter. She claimed that the policemen had "threatened her with a knife and ordered her to say that her uncle (Adem Jashari) had killed everyone who wanted to surrender."Given that what you're saying is in agreement with that, I am baffled that you would remove the passage. Sdrqaz ( talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Adem Jashari.
"In general, when communicating with others, you should use one of the previous options and not only a timestamp". Giant Snowman 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at GiantSnowman's talk page.
Half an hour isn't really too early, and their terms expire today in any event. And if it isn't really settled law at what exact minute they expire, it's hardly inaccurate.-- Killuminator ( talk) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In all statutes, orders, rules, and regulations relating to the time of performance of any act ... it shall be understood and intended that the time shall insofar as practicable ... be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed; 4 U.S.C. § 72 make it clear that
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that editors will jump the proverbial gun, but just because it is occurring on other pages doesn't make it right. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself in response to this edit.
I updated the Eyak language page to have the proper endonym for the language: dAxhunhyuuga’. Iyaq is an exonym, not the native name. See here (page 11) and here. Please undo your removal of the edit. 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 ( talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Eyak language.
Hi,
You removed my changes on the page Symbiosis. I did not provide a new reference as the references already there are actually saying what I wrote. They had been badly summarized before, it was confusing. You can check this by reading the references. Also, what I wrote is on this wikipedia page already: check Cell nucleus, under Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.83.72 ( talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Symbiosis.
Just visited your page and saw your userbox. As it happens, it's my real-life birthday—an amusing coincidence :) AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Great job your doing Phillypaboy123 ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. FASTILY 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A ( talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here; parallel discussions took place at Talk:Lara Trump and at ANI.
Indeed, her resignation from the US Senate doesn't take effect until Noon EST, on 18 January 2021. But, trying to make that stick, is like spitting up against the Niagara Falls. GoodDay ( talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, I just wanted to drop a quick thank-you for closing the RFC finally. I know it was probably quite a bit to read through; I never imagined when I filed it that I'd wind up so personally and abusively attacked just for filing a required procedure. IHateAccounts ( talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
With this close you accuse "many editors" of extending criticism to the proposer. Can you name them and/or point to their edits? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
jerk [them]selves off to the accomplishment [...]and others who called it a waste of time when RfCs are required to deprecate sources. Sdrqaz ( talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements.That means that where editors believe the source to be de facto deprecated, that does not preclude going through the formal deprecation process. If you wish to take my future closures of RfCs up to a higher authority, you will be well within your rights to do so. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
The article on 116th Congress does not include the former President and President Pro Tempore. That is why Pence's information is removed. Jusfiq ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was following my message at Jusfiq's talk page.
I respectfully disagree with your reasoning on eliminating "coalition" from the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress. If you look at the page for the 110th United States Congress, you'll see that it does have the Senate majority listed as a Democratic (coalition). We need to be consistent. Either we add "coalition" to the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress, or we eliminate "coalition" from the 110th United States Congress. It's important to note the Democratic caucus' majorities for both congressional sessions were predicated upon the same conditions: Democrats did not have enough seats to constitute a majority in and of themselves; their "majority" was only made possible with two Independent senators agreeing to align with their caucus. Therefore, I would argue that the majority caucuses in the 110th and 117th Congresses is and were truly multiparty coalitions. Wxstorm ( talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was following my message at Wxstorm's talk page.
Hi, I work for Blackstone. I see you were recently active at the Blackstone article and appear to have a good sense of how to apply the NPOV policy. Can you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray#Some edit requests regarding whether the Controversies section consists of a WP:COATRACK or not? Thank you, ThomasClements Blackstone ( talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no government link. one is broken and the other doesn't mention Jaffna as a twin city. I suggest you to look carefully at the citations. YaSiRu11 ( talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
a signing ceremony to twin Kingston with Jaffna, a district in the northern province of Sri Lanka.The Surrey Comet states:
[As the] country prepares to sever its ties with the European Union, Kingston has found itself a new Asian partner in the form of the Sri Lankan city Jaffna. Kingston Council has announced it is twinning with the city in a bid to build “greater understanding and sharing knowledge” in areas of governance, healthcare and education.I do not understand where the confusion is, as it is quite clear that it has been twinned. Even if the government link had been broken beyond repair, the newspaper source would have sufficed. Please revert your own edit. Sdrqaz ( talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible.See Wikipedia:Link rot and Help:Archiving a source. I suspect that you have quite a few contributions where you removed information simply because the link was dead and would advise you to go back and do so, so that valuable information is not lost from Wikipedia. Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Jaffna District.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: Discussion is archived here.
I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 12 that did not include a direct source.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.
All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.
All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.
Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 ( talk) 16:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, On the page where I can see my edit count, I noticed a category called User Group (which is empty in my case). Could you tell me what those are and how I can become a member? Best wishes Lev21 ( talk) 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz. I noticed that you've started a draft at Draft:Shadow docket. This is a topic that interests me as well, and if you would like, I would be happy to help flesh out the draft and get it into mainspace. I don't want to step on your toes, however, as it seems like you have a plan for writing the article already, so I'd also be happy to step back and let you take the lead. All the best, Mz7 ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, but I would not describe my contribution to that discussion as at all elegant! Thryduulf ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my !vote at WP:VPPOL, which was building on this !vote by Thryduulf.
I'm surprised something like that's been on your mind for a while but don't worry about it, it's all good. I learned something new in the process too. I didn't feel slighted by the phrasing at the time, I understood what you meant after a back and forth talk so I didn't think badly of the intended or unintended tone behind it. -- Killuminator ( talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself a follow-up to this message. A related conversation can be found here.
I believe that the addition of the reference was an attempt at self promotion of one of the authors of the article.By looking at the history of that article you can see that the reference was unnecessary. This is not the first time that Andreas( https://andreasplagiarism.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/andreas-theodorou-committed-plagiarism-in-his-phd-thesis/) has attempted to unnecessarily insert his name on AI articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindpit ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at Explainable artificial intelligence.
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Congrats on being in the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers this month. Great job. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC) |
I'm not sure how to insert Scott Mann into British Government frontbench, can you help?
BlueD954 ( talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to appologize for making my prank edit on Joe Manchins page and wasting your time having to review it and revert it back. I am sure that is as annoying to you as it was unneccesary for me to do. Enjoy your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B143:D99C:201F:102B:8CDF:E8D ( talk) 21:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to these edits at Joe Manchin. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers
I think this is the best source for the article British government frontbench. Do update if you like cause it is outdated. 2401:7400:4009:6801:5CDD:2E5:A65D:6271 ( talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Zeki Alasya best turkish actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZekiAlasyaMetinAkpinar ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Pertinent information can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stepgilara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. An associated edit from a similarly-named editor ( Zekialasyametinakpinarrr) can be found here. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.
Hi, I saw your post on the AWB talk page. Do you have an example of what you are looking for? What you might want to search for? I have some methods of getting around some AWB limitations. If anything comes of this discussion we can post on the AWB page. Regards, Neils51 ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
"The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"]]"
and changing it to 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish']]{{-"}}
.My two issues are this:
''
into '"
), searching for QWQ violations would throw up a lot of perfectly-valid uses of bold and italic. Searching the rendered text wouldn't have the same problem, as Ctrl-F doesn't look for things like italics. As I said at
WT:AWB, I'm using a pretty conservative program so fewer false positives are thrown up, but that also means "true" positives are falling through the cracks."[['Scuse
to {{"-}}[['Scuse
, but ignored [['Scuse
in
§ Episodes despite that creating the same rendered text. That's due to {{
#invoke:Episode list|sublist}} (I think, or at least one of the modules) wrapping every episode title with inverted commas.Note: Conversation was in response to my question at WT:AWB.
Dear Sdrqaz. Thank you for your welcome message. I hope you have a good day to. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate the assist at DYK. I've added sources to the nomination form. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again! 173.162.220.17 ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding this Did You Know nomination.
Sorry about my commentary on "True and the Rainbow Kingdom" I know I was being honest about the show, but instead it was un-encylopedic and didn't conform to Wikipedia's standards. 😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸 Sorry about the laughing kitties. I definitely WAS NOT MOCKING YOU.
~meow~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.116.200 ( talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at True and the Rainbow Kingdom.
For reverting edits at Manoj Chauhan. If it keeps up, I'll log a page protection request. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this reversion and this restoration at Manoj Chauhan.
Hi (I don't know your name),
I wish you had not called out a page I was using to experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books.
I am not angry :-)
But I am disappointed.
Take care,
- Mark Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.101.165 ( talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books? Wikipedia isn't a webhost, after all. Given that the information was taken directly from the books, the data from the pages you lost is still available on Google Books and should be retrievable. Sdrqaz ( talk) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was in response to this message at Markjgraham hmb's talk page and to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 22.
Sdrqaz, thanks again for offering to review this request to update the article to be more like the draft I've shared here. Happy to address any concerns with the proposed update, MS rep 4 NMorris ( talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I've posted a final request for the Nate Morris article about the Politics section. You've been so helpful reviewing this draft, so I hope you're able to take a look at the last two requests. Thanks again! MS rep 4 NMorris ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Sdrqaz. RfA is an incredibly stressful experience. I don't see that you've run one under this user name, but it's not something that needs extra questions. From the point of view of someone who hasn't run one, it's hard to understand how stressful every extra question can be. It's 24/7 for an entire week, and it can go horribly wrong. Unless your question actually is necessary for you to make a decision, it's actively harmful to the process IMO. —valereee ( talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
incredibly stressfulevent, and naturally my ability to put myself in the candidate's shoes is limited. I think in light of recent events, the community is well aware that RfAs
can go horribly wrong. However, just as I believe that badgering opposers is rarely helpful, haranguing !voters who ask what you may consider stupid questions isn't that helpful either, especially when the question has been answered and the candidate has professed (perhaps vi coactus) that they were happy to answer the question. If I'm completely frank, that feels like sticky behaviour, given that it's easy to dismiss it as moot.I agree that questions should be
necessary for you to make a decision, but people make decisions in strange ways and I'm ready to assume that they're not just trolling for the sake of it. Perhaps I'm naïve: I suspect that most others would have probably reverted the above message as trolling. Just as how being an administrator isn't just about memorising all the policies, questions at RfA aren't just about policy knowledge – they're also about trying to get a feel for the candidate and their temperament and !voters have strange ways of trying to suss that out. Having been unfamiliar with many of our recent RfA candidates, I'm a little more sympathetic to those strange methods. You probably disagree with me: like I said, we probably have opposing views on adminship and RfAs. But that's fine. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
good way to raise [my] own profileor
just feeding [my] own egos/want[ing] to hear [my] voice. I asked, well, because I was curious what the candidate thought and why.As for the question in the current RfA, on the surface I can put it down to just curiosity. People want to know why administrators chose their usernames (see here and here –
asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable). On a more cynical level, a bureaucrat once told me that !voters look for candidates that aren't too deletionist or too inclusionist, aren't too exopedianist or too metapedianist, and have certainly opposed for those reasons. I can't read the !voter's mind, but perhaps that was part of the reason why the question was asked. Maybe the !voter wanted to know if the candidate was more eventualist or immediatist or what their general philosophical views are ( this RfA has a lot on such views).As for what I think is the optimal approach, I don't have the perfect answer. My own approach (letting the candidate disregard any questions they don't want to answer) is a probably a little too laissez-faire for you, as you're a lot more invested in RfA reform than I am. If that path is unacceptable (as I assume it is), perhaps just prodding the questioner once would suffice. If the questioner gets it, great! If not, well maybe a seed has been planted for the future. Disengage. Trying to ram the point home may just cause the proverbial seed to be destroyed beyond repair and may only cause more drama. Some people take pleasure from being contrarian and that may become more likely as a result. Sdrqaz ( talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD 2, specifically Q5 and the ensuing discussion.
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period January 2016 to July 2021. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |