Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is Compassionate727's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
When communicating with this
user, it is further appreciated if you:
|
Sometimes this user has the attention span of a squirrel. If you were expecting a reply or follow-up to something and this user never provided one, you are invited to ping him or leave a message on his talk page reminding him to do so. |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Hello Compassionate727,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Template talk:Infobox person on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sulaiman Bek on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Compassionate727! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
I see that you've closed the discussion on:
even though consensus was clearly not in favour. Would you please consider reverting your close? It appears to me to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial - see WP:BADNAC. Deb ( talk) 07:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward IV. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward V. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I applaud your approach to weigh the arguments depending on how well they are supported by policy. However, your closing decision here rests heavily on the following interpretation of the opposing argument:
the somewhat related [opposition] argument that the proposed titles were less recognizable was valid and weighty under policy
. This statement suggests you believe that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is measured on some kind of continuum, where more recognizable is better than less recognizable, period. However, the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria is clearly specified as a threshold that must be met:
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
That is, a title that "is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" meets the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria just as well as a title that is more recognizable to the public in general. The proposed titles all meet this criteria, there is no dispute about that, so RECOGNIZABILITY does not favor opposition.
Your closure also dismisses the supporting argument citing NCROY, because you claim NCROY "does not actually apply to Georgian monarchs (being Asian)". Although NCROY seems to limit its scope to European monarches by stating it is "intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility", it also says: "Elsewhere, territorial designations [like “of Tao”] are usually unnecessary in article titles". Georgia is "elsewhere": therefore, per NCROY, "territorial designations are usually unnecessary". Opposition did not show why these titles should be exceptions that necessitate territorial designations in their titles.
Please reconsider your decision accordingly. -- В²C ☎ 04:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Israel and apartheid and
Talk:Barkley Marathons on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Barkley Marathons on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Compassionate727
Thank you for taking the time to address the RfC concerning the Battle of Kosovo infobox. As you may recall, the RfC concluded with the exclusion of Muzaka and Jonima from the article. However, their belligerents were also automatically included to the infobox together with the leaders. This practice has, of course, been applied consistently for all leaders and their respective belligerents in the infobox. If a leader is put into the infobox, so is their faction too.
While the focus of the RfC was primarily on the leaders themselves, it seems logical to extend the same rationale to their respective belligerents. Opening a new RfC specifically for the belligerents would be inefficient and time-consuming for everyone involved. Both the leaders and their belligerents were added simultaneously based on the same sources, and both instances conflict with MOS:INFOBOX.
Rather than initiating a separate RfC, I suggest it would be more efficient if you could share your opinion on the article's talkpage regarding belligerents ( Talk:Battle of Kosovo § Belligerents). I'm asking you because you've already delved into the topic and gained some insights, and perhaps most importantly, you would serve as a third party. It appears that those who opposed the exclusion of the leaders are less cooperative when it comes to the removal of their belligerents, despite the fact that when they were added, they were added completely simultaneously. 1 2
If you believe there are significant differences between the leaders and their belligerents that warrant another RfC, please inform me. I value your opinion regardless. Thank you. --Azor ( talk). 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is Compassionate727's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
When communicating with this
user, it is further appreciated if you:
|
Sometimes this user has the attention span of a squirrel. If you were expecting a reply or follow-up to something and this user never provided one, you are invited to ping him or leave a message on his talk page reminding him to do so. |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Hello Compassionate727,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Template talk:Infobox person on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sulaiman Bek on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Compassionate727! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
I see that you've closed the discussion on:
even though consensus was clearly not in favour. Would you please consider reverting your close? It appears to me to have little reasoning or valuation of the arguments behind it. Non-admins are advised against closing discussions where the outcome is likely to be controversial - see WP:BADNAC. Deb ( talk) 07:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward IV. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Edward V. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Deb ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, Compassionate727. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: | |
|
Tol Bot ( talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I applaud your approach to weigh the arguments depending on how well they are supported by policy. However, your closing decision here rests heavily on the following interpretation of the opposing argument:
the somewhat related [opposition] argument that the proposed titles were less recognizable was valid and weighty under policy
. This statement suggests you believe that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is measured on some kind of continuum, where more recognizable is better than less recognizable, period. However, the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria is clearly specified as a threshold that must be met:
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
That is, a title that "is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" meets the RECOGNIZABILITY criteria just as well as a title that is more recognizable to the public in general. The proposed titles all meet this criteria, there is no dispute about that, so RECOGNIZABILITY does not favor opposition.
Your closure also dismisses the supporting argument citing NCROY, because you claim NCROY "does not actually apply to Georgian monarchs (being Asian)". Although NCROY seems to limit its scope to European monarches by stating it is "intended to apply to medieval and modern European rulers and nobility", it also says: "Elsewhere, territorial designations [like “of Tao”] are usually unnecessary in article titles". Georgia is "elsewhere": therefore, per NCROY, "territorial designations are usually unnecessary". Opposition did not show why these titles should be exceptions that necessitate territorial designations in their titles.
Please reconsider your decision accordingly. -- В²C ☎ 04:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Israel and apartheid and
Talk:Barkley Marathons on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Barkley Marathons on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Compassionate727
Thank you for taking the time to address the RfC concerning the Battle of Kosovo infobox. As you may recall, the RfC concluded with the exclusion of Muzaka and Jonima from the article. However, their belligerents were also automatically included to the infobox together with the leaders. This practice has, of course, been applied consistently for all leaders and their respective belligerents in the infobox. If a leader is put into the infobox, so is their faction too.
While the focus of the RfC was primarily on the leaders themselves, it seems logical to extend the same rationale to their respective belligerents. Opening a new RfC specifically for the belligerents would be inefficient and time-consuming for everyone involved. Both the leaders and their belligerents were added simultaneously based on the same sources, and both instances conflict with MOS:INFOBOX.
Rather than initiating a separate RfC, I suggest it would be more efficient if you could share your opinion on the article's talkpage regarding belligerents ( Talk:Battle of Kosovo § Belligerents). I'm asking you because you've already delved into the topic and gained some insights, and perhaps most importantly, you would serve as a third party. It appears that those who opposed the exclusion of the leaders are less cooperative when it comes to the removal of their belligerents, despite the fact that when they were added, they were added completely simultaneously. 1 2
If you believe there are significant differences between the leaders and their belligerents that warrant another RfC, please inform me. I value your opinion regardless. Thank you. --Azor ( talk). 15:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)