Hello, long time no talk! You had
recently posted the last consensus of which I was aware was to not name the suspect. Please go to talk before making this change.
I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect; no consensus was found for naming which would be
WP:NOCON. While still preventing the name from being included due to no agreement, it is different than the 'we all agreed not to name' that comes with consensus :)
I had pointed this out to another user recently, so it has happened before and you aren't alone. And the RfC was almost a year ago so it's understandable to be foggy on it lol.
Take care Awshort ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thx for blocking this minor change, because a talk about it was going, but i have to inform you, that a consensus is not possible, due to 2 certain individuals inability to accept, that an already used Reliable source since early March is still a reliable source, and that to add the actual full factual statement of this source would not add to the verifiability of the source used by Wikipedia but would make the whole article more undue, than these random quotes from some articles in the article for example. I had to tell them 2-3 times, that the source is already use din the article, they didnt even got this info and just slammed the unreliable source card without informing themself properly.
This is in my honest view simply a WP:DISRUPTIVE case of WP:STEWARDSHIP with the excuse of not fixing the not broken stuff. This is easily highlighted with actual statements of the individuals in the past, that imply even the necessary to add these parts of the controversy, if a reliable source would mention it.
So now one side wants to apparently declare an alread yused and never called unreliable source no longer reliable, because it would mean to add 3 neutral and factual words about this.....crazy. -- 2003:DF:A72F:9F00:75A5:F75A:BAA2:BBA9 ( talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, long time no talk! You had
recently posted the last consensus of which I was aware was to not name the suspect. Please go to talk before making this change.
I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect; no consensus was found for naming which would be
WP:NOCON. While still preventing the name from being included due to no agreement, it is different than the 'we all agreed not to name' that comes with consensus :)
I had pointed this out to another user recently, so it has happened before and you aren't alone. And the RfC was almost a year ago so it's understandable to be foggy on it lol.
Take care Awshort ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thx for blocking this minor change, because a talk about it was going, but i have to inform you, that a consensus is not possible, due to 2 certain individuals inability to accept, that an already used Reliable source since early March is still a reliable source, and that to add the actual full factual statement of this source would not add to the verifiability of the source used by Wikipedia but would make the whole article more undue, than these random quotes from some articles in the article for example. I had to tell them 2-3 times, that the source is already use din the article, they didnt even got this info and just slammed the unreliable source card without informing themself properly.
This is in my honest view simply a WP:DISRUPTIVE case of WP:STEWARDSHIP with the excuse of not fixing the not broken stuff. This is easily highlighted with actual statements of the individuals in the past, that imply even the necessary to add these parts of the controversy, if a reliable source would mention it.
So now one side wants to apparently declare an alread yused and never called unreliable source no longer reliable, because it would mean to add 3 neutral and factual words about this.....crazy. -- 2003:DF:A72F:9F00:75A5:F75A:BAA2:BBA9 ( talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)