This is Brusquedandelion's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
..regarding "Salandarianflag absolutely is WP:XC—rv spurious deletion". I am aware of the extendedconfirmed status of all editors who participate in discussions started by a non-extendedconfirmed editors that I consider for removal. My decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on that. It depends on the degree to which the statement by the non-extendedconfirmed user resembles an edit request that is 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. A response from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the degree to which a statement from a non-extendedconfirmed user departs from the rules, in my view, so it plays little part in my decision procedure. There is, in my view, more utility in extendedconfirmed users informing the user what they need to do to comply with the restrictions than arguing or agreeing with them. There is some diversity in the approach used to deal with these situations at the moment, including removal, hatting, archiving or trying to handle the comment as an edit request if it is close enough. The optimum approach is not obvious. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency ona given factor, you should not claim that they are a factor in the edit summary in the first place! Anyways, there is absolutely no policy-based rationale for randomly deleting Talk Page discussions that you have personally decided don't merit inclusion. Especially by what appears to be, by your own admission, a single purpose, non-administrator account solely devoted to "suppressing dissent" on Israel-Palestine talk pages. WP:PIA has three very specific remedies, none of permit, much less enjoin, random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like. This is probably why you claimed it had something to do with WP:XC status in the first place, hoping no one would notice.
Uncontroversial, is manifestly absurd, and something you just made up yourself. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
permit[s], much less enjoin[s], random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like! Feel free to quote the rule that says otherwise if you disagree. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It is about implementing the rules.
That is why I said a reply from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the status of a comment and legitimize its presence
Read wp:talk there is no requirement for me to post a reply straight away, or even within a few hours, we do have lives. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:794 short stories has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat ( talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This is Brusquedandelion's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
..regarding "Salandarianflag absolutely is WP:XC—rv spurious deletion". I am aware of the extendedconfirmed status of all editors who participate in discussions started by a non-extendedconfirmed editors that I consider for removal. My decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency on that. It depends on the degree to which the statement by the non-extendedconfirmed user resembles an edit request that is 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. A response from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the degree to which a statement from a non-extendedconfirmed user departs from the rules, in my view, so it plays little part in my decision procedure. There is, in my view, more utility in extendedconfirmed users informing the user what they need to do to comply with the restrictions than arguing or agreeing with them. There is some diversity in the approach used to deal with these situations at the moment, including removal, hatting, archiving or trying to handle the comment as an edit request if it is close enough. The optimum approach is not obvious. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
decisions to remove a section have little to no dependency ona given factor, you should not claim that they are a factor in the edit summary in the first place! Anyways, there is absolutely no policy-based rationale for randomly deleting Talk Page discussions that you have personally decided don't merit inclusion. Especially by what appears to be, by your own admission, a single purpose, non-administrator account solely devoted to "suppressing dissent" on Israel-Palestine talk pages. WP:PIA has three very specific remedies, none of permit, much less enjoin, random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like. This is probably why you claimed it had something to do with WP:XC status in the first place, hoping no one would notice.
Uncontroversial, is manifestly absurd, and something you just made up yourself. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
permit[s], much less enjoin[s], random self-deputized editors to delete content they don't like! Feel free to quote the rule that says otherwise if you disagree. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
It is about implementing the rules.
That is why I said a reply from an extendedconfirmed user does not change the status of a comment and legitimize its presence
Read wp:talk there is no requirement for me to post a reply straight away, or even within a few hours, we do have lives. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Caspar Mezzofanti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:794 short stories has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat ( talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)