Archives ( Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello, Okmrman, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am just here to let you know that you archived 2 topics on the talk page Talk:Karl Jacobs that should not have been archived, they were important because they gave reasoning for some decisions regarding the article and comments within the article mention to check the talk page for further information (mainly about his place of birth). I have un-archived them so they are back on the main page but I also wanted to ask you to not archive everything, especially since the talk page is relatively small and didn't need archiving. I would recommend reading the help page Help:Archiving a talk page for more information on when to archive, and it suggests archiving after a page exceeds 75.000 bytes ( Talk:Karl Jacobs hadn't exceeded 8.000 bytes). All the best! Wandering Morpheme 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you please stop messing with talk page archiving? You've disrupted dozens of talk pages with unnecessary auto-archiving configurations that were done wrong and not necessary. Automatic archiving should not be configured just because a talk page has old topics. It is for talk page that are under regular discussion that need archiving to keep size down. This is disruptive. Stop. -- ferret ( talk) 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Okmrman, I see that despite the above notice from Ferret, you have continued to do this. You should never set up another user's talk page for archiving unless that user has explicitly asked for it to be done; and you should not set up other talk pages for archiving unless it's already been suggested and agreed. Therefore, I'm making it formal: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Okmrman,

You have only been editing for a few weeks and I don't think you have enough editing experience to know when redirects or articles warrant deletion. Please stop nominating pages for deletion consideration until you have more experience on the project. I don't think you know what you are doing or are familar with BEFORE. If you have questions about this, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—  The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello.

I contest your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Holy Chao. To me, three opinions are not WP:SNOW. I request that the RfD be open for at least a week, and that another user have a look at it after that.

Therefore, I request that you undo your non-admin closure as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.

Thanks in advance. Veverve ( talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

sure i will let u revert it Okmrman ( talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please note that there were five Keep comments and no objections, not three (one did not specifically say "Keep" but that was the scope of the comment). So a snow close arguably has merit. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also looking at the other closures at only four days. I think all these should be reopened. And, truthfully, you should be the one to reopen them, otherwise it could look like edit warring or close to it. Please do so. Thanks. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

They were good closes except for the time period (although they were all bordering on Snow), so you can just leave them as they are and not accept Steve Quinn and others (including myself) to dictate your work. In a discussion about talking to you they said to someone without linking the names of the editors in order to allow them to discuss the tone and bias in this statement: "Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages.", when all should have been linked. I will do so now, thanks. (" Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages.") - I think that Oakman may be a misspelling of your name? Not sure about that, maybe Steve Quinn can clear up why he thinks these users are clowns and putting on a show. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: could you please provide a diff for that statement. @ Steve Quinn: that's a personal attack and if once a diff is provided I find that it is not redacted I will have to take it to WP:ANI. I think an apology on my talk page would also be in order. I am not a clown show, and you need to look at my work at Discordianism and formulate another opinion. Skyerise ( talk) 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It's on Veverve's talk page, but please maybe not take this to ANI, especially if an apology and explanation is forthcoming. Did Steve Quinn mean this in good faith (maybe he loves clowns, some people do). Too many ANI fights exist when we should be able to talk it out amongst ourselves. Steve has maligned me at ANI recently, in several comments, and I just shake my head (trying to clear the eclipse cobwebs out). Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Randy Kryn: - about the closures - The point is that they were closed too early after only four days. I came by to ivote and those had already been closed. It could be others are coming by to ivote. So, this is really not acceptable. And this has nothing to do with influencing Oakrman's work, and trying to direct them about what to do. This is not about that. This is procedural stuff to which we should be accommodating. So, I will probably go to WP:AN and ask an admin to reopen these, because I don't want to do this for the reason(s) I stated above. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Okmrman: I ask that all of my RfDs you closed, which were open for less than a week, be reopened by you. The reason is that the closing we premature to me, and that if it is your mistake I expect you to fix them. And it goes without saying that the closing of the reopened RfDs should not be done by you. Thanks in advance. Veverve ( talk) 17:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I still stand by the closure and if you want to reopen it, go request the admins to see if it's valid or not. Considering that @ Utopes, a more experienced person active in RfD closed some of your discussions himself, I'd say that closure still holds up. Okmrman ( talk) 21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Closing April 5th discussions on April 7th (and even April 9th, as they have been since) is highly not ideal as procedure would suggest to wait for 7 days to pass, to give everyone several days to think things through. However, with so many singular RfD discussions based on incomplete reasoning and without looking for WP:Alternatives to deletion, I don't see what relisting the discussion would do at this stage besides sitting around waiting for the proverbial snowballs to melt in hell. Do you want all of the discussions reopened (i.e. the typos and etc), or just Holy Chao, Veverve? Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 21:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Okmrman, Utopes. I just opened notified WP:AN of the problem. See the new section below on this page. Okmrman, as far as I am concerned your premature closures and your attitude of "standing by" your decision amounts to WP:DE disruptive editing. Is it because you don't know what you are doing? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would wish all of those closed prematurely to be reopened. Veverve ( talk) 05:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. I mentioned your user name and discussed the premature RFD closures at the Admin Noticeboard. Here is the link: [1]. This is a courtesy notice. Regards, --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. You should not be relisting a discussion more than twice, much less for a fourth time, much much less without leaving any summary as to why it's being relisted a fourth time, as you did here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Tantras. The instructions outlined at WP:RELIST are explicit in this, and is mandatory reading for closers.

On a separate note, which I was planning to ask independently, but please ensure that your standalone comments and !votes are being entered at the end of discussions, (as long as it's not a reply to a different user). I've had to move several of your !votes which were not in chronological order, due to yours being placed in the middle, usually after relist templates. Ensuring that the latest comments are listed at the bottom of the discussion makes it much easier for readers and closers to follow the timeline and parse what the current consensus is. Thank you. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply