This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Shane Greenstein at Harvard Business School has authored several studies on Wikipedia’s reliability, and says that the encyclopedia needs a variety of sources to maintain a neutral perspective and avoid becoming one-sided. “You need multiple editors to debate and identify different points of view, and in the absence of a large supply of those editors Wikipedia won’t perform very well,” he says.
Hi, the date when 2Joules was blocked is not important as it is the date that the sockpuppet master (the real editor) was blocked that counts and renders all subsequent edits invalid. The real editor is user:FreeatlastChitchat who was blocked on 6 March last. Regarding the AFDs only those with no delete votes can be closed due to the sock nomination, the others have to continue but with the sock's comments struck out, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
[A reason to Speedy Keep an article nominated for deletion is when] the nominator is banned. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed. As you can see, the only reason an AfD can be speedily deleted (and the article speedily kept) is when the AfD was tabled by a banned editor. SK4 says nothing about the kind of responses the AfD attracts. So, there is no basis for your description of when an AfD is closed down.
Just e-mail me. Deb ( talk) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't modify my statement as was done here. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Gnome, just wanted to compliment your work here. I was expecting a close along the lines of "no consensus" but it was clear you put effort into a well crafted closing. Thanks for that hard work! Springee ( talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Didn't really want to drop an open comment onto the AfD talk page, but I was wondering (as someone with fairly different AfD views) whether you thought that Admin closers were poor at closing what should be merges and making them redirects and, in effect, saying someone else do the merging. This seems to bring two problems - i) Worst, it risks no content actually getting transferred if no user steps up to move it, ii) it gives incorrect judgements, meaning any assessment based partially off an AfD score will be wrong (more in my head as i've been wandering around WP:PERM, I suspect). Let me know if you think I'm more than mildly making a mountain out of a molehill, but I've been seeing a couple of cases per week, and I guess I participate in around 7% of AfDs. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent contributions. I'm rather looking for cases or criticizing than able to write integral pages. Xx236 ( talk) 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
About this...
First, this was not a proper RfC but a side discussion and there are only 8 !votes.
If you look at the !votes:
Note that the last ~vote in that section, by Zubin12, is clearly about the RfC question above; it often happens when discussions get split, that people !vote in the wrong place.
There is clearly no consensus about how much detail to include. This could perhaps be settled by an actual RfC focused on the question. Please reconsider your close. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
While there's not a clear agreement with the exact closure nor the process leading to it, there's equally no consensus that the close was improper per WP:BADNAC.Not surprised. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Gnome. I undid your edit on this AFD where you changed my Keep !vote to a Comment. Perhaps you saw my (indented) discussions with other !voters, or recalled seeing my !vote on the DRV, and thought I had voted before, but it was actually my one and only vote in the AFD. I recognize you meant well, and appreciate the need for such gnoming work. However it is disconcerting to check back on an AFD one has participated in and find one's !vote "disenfranchised" so to speak by someone else editing the words you have entered. Might I suggest in future situations like this you strike but leave in the prior editor's actual words, and drop them a note on their talk page why you feel changing their words is needed, all to increase visibility that their contribution to the discussion has been changed. It helps flag for attention that someone else felt a change was necessary, allows for a discussion whether this is truly the case, and avoids the feeling of "WTF, I didn't mean to say that...wait, I didn't say that, someone else changed my remarks!". Cheers, Martinp ( talk) 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm commenting not because of what I stated here, but because I am wondering why you chose to close the RfC when there has been animosity between us in the past. I would not close an RfC if the starter of the RfC was someone I've expressed animosity toward in the past and who expressed animosity towards me in turn. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, he was a sockpuppet master not a sockpuppet and was not blocked at that time. WP:DWS is an essay not even a guideline so can you point to any policy that backs up your revert of my edit, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey. You put a question to me, or at least some sort of comment that prompted me to reply. The discussion was closed shortly after, so here it is again.
No, I do not. And yes, I will. cygnis insignis 11:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Gnome. I posted several sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt (3rd nomination) after you commented. Would you review the sources I provided? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You made changes (many but not all improvements) to Suhai Aziz Talpur leaving the following edit summary: "removed unnecessary language indicators abt source being in English (default language here), fawning and adulatory verbiage e.g. quotes from media, irrelevancies, and solicisms ; added wikilinks; wikified sources, not afraid of listing dates in full and easy-to-the eye text; removed empty ext.link"
The article has been worked on by several editors whose native language is not English. It should have been possible for you to improve their work, and describe your process, with a more collegial edit summary. HouseOfChange ( talk) 09:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
:) Sammartinlai ( talk) 05:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi The Gnome, thank you for closing the discussion at WP:RSN. I just wanted to clarify that the discussion was a plain discussion, and not a RfC. Could you please amend the closing summary and the archiving template to reflect this? Thanks. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: Participants in this discussion have objected to the use of the referenced text in the Wikipedia article on the basis of WP:WEIGHT, and other similar, contextual arguments but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion.
"but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion")? — Newslinger talk 07:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
acknowledging your grace under fire, and offering comradely sympathy about the ease with which we humans can fail to miss the slick elision of facts by editors with whom we usually agree on political questions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, The Gnome. About here I just wanted to make clear that I'm not a user who writes articles to please Capcom or to receive money from it. I gave very specific reasons for the creation of that article (which I presume you didn't care to read in the discussion) and probably, when time will be right, RE Engine will reappear, just as one of the users pointed out. Also, "fans of video games often create articles in the manner of shrines", sounds a bit like a confirmation bias generalization, don't you think? I just wanted to take off the pebble from the shoe, since you rightly wanted to express yourself for a "Delete". Goodbye. Lone Internaut ( talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Greek withdrawal from the eurozone into
Withdrawal from the Eurozone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Gnome – in the talk page for Paul Samuelson I questioned the appropriateness of a section which I think you had a hand in. I meant to ping you but forgot. Colin.champion ( talk) 09:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gnome. I noticed you said the following on the talk page of the article on Julius Evola:
The question concerns the use of the text as a source for Evola's ideas - and here the Merelli article is not an arbitrary, speculative, personal take, but based firmly on the very text she's citing:
Compare, please, the text in Merelli ("Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire," etc) with the text in Evola's " Eros and the Mysteries of Love" ("If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her ... Why God allows girls to be raped during wars or disorders. Apart from the unfathomable nature of heavenly designs and a hint of possible compensation in the afterlife for sufferings on earth (supposing that the rape of a girl amounts only to suffering), [we] wonder whether the girls in question had not sinned by their pride in showing their virtue," etc). No reasonable person could argue that Merelli misrepresents Evola's ideas.
It's not clear how the text you referenced implies Evola justified rape "as a natural expression of male desire". The first sentence, concerning male desire, is descriptive, not normative. The latter sentences, on the other hand, do not contain the question of "male desire" at all. At most they suggest justification due to a "lack of virtue" in the victims, not "male desire" in the perpetrators. Did you read the text you cited carefully? 160.39.234.202 ( talk) 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The key word here is "natural," i.e. that Evola considers rape practically normatively.
The deepest factor [in rape] is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her. I don't see how this assessment is normative at all. Quite frankly, your claim is very offensive because it implies that psychologists who agree with this assessment are "justifying rape". 160.39.234.202 ( talk) 06:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
this non-issueIf it's a non-issue, why has it been raised again and again by multiple editors throughout article's history (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and our current discussion)? Trying to brush it off as a "non-issue" is dishonest.
Hi, I see that you’ve deleted this article because the subject doesn’t meet the criteria. But the references provided was Korean national level newspaper and google level search engine whom verified his albums and music appeared on National TV. Could you please help me to retrieve the article please? I accidentally wrote draft without knowing the subject appeared in many other Korean related article, and moved from draft to article which created this confusion, which I’ll never do. If you could even move it back to Draft stage, I will very appreciate it. Thank you. J2love ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this was technically out of line. I went there just now to strike my own !vote to userfy the page because I could see before I wrote it that it wasn't going to pass, and because I was getting (and still am getting) grief over it in otherwise unrelated discussions. I was surprised to see it had been speedy-closed without citing which of the speedy keep criteria it met. Yeah, if you had shown up between when Banner withdrew his nomination and when I cast my !vote technically it would have qualified, but the fact that my !vote existed is the very reason I wanted to edit the AFD just now, and is also the reason why I'm pretty sure speedy keep was not allowed. I'm sure you did so in good faith, and I would be perfectly happy with you re-closing as soon as I strike my own !vote, but shutting it down before I get a chance to do so really doesn't seem fair. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
has run for at least seven days, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. The discussion resulted in an evidently clear Keep, while the nominator had also withdrawn the article's candidacy for deletion. Per WP:CLOSEAFD,
an editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances. Please correct me if I am in any way wrong. As to re-opening the discussion to allow you to strike off your suggestion, I'm not sure we can do this. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
at least seven days: at the time you closed the discussion, it had been open for 6 days, 0 hours, and 24 minutes, and seven days still had not passed before I wrote the above; you would have been entitled to speedy close the discussion if there were no non-keep !votes, but my !vote meant that that was not the case.
Editor
Cassianto asccused me here of edit warring in the article "
Infobox" and then removed the accusation with an edit summary stating "Cant be bothered."
My friendly suggestion to the accuser is to read up on
WP:AN3, where what is and what is not edit warring is rather clearly described. To wit, edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. Content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism
. There were never any "confrontational edits" from my part; simply a request to discuss things first (specifically about this serially contentious issue) before placing "favoring-use-of infobox" templates on the page. And of course, there were never
three reverts. For those interested in the substance of the issue, the
relevant RfC is already under way. Cheers, all. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can you give me some sources to show it is "not kosher" to change the section header for a rfc when it contradicts the rfc question. I have checked policy, and cannot find it covered. Thanks. [1] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 13:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. According to
WP:TPO we do not edit comments by other editors unless they are explicitly harmful in some way or another. Even though it was clearly obvious that you edited the comments at AfD in good faith, I undid it. Although, it is practised to edit the comments for formatting purposes. See you around
Regards, —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Cautiously editing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed [when] fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. That is precisely what I did and the whole extent of what I did. A correct format makes the work of admins a lot easier when closign down AfDs or RfCs, especially when the dialogue is extended. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
at this RfC. It would be useful if you could add your conclusions about the proposed exceptions, to indicate whether you're saying that the consensus is "no exceptions", or that there is perhaps still no consensus on some proposed exceptions such as (The The song) and (The Who album). I.e. should we execute on all, or talk more first? Dicklyon ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, please review Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and consider reopening the discussion in view of those comments. Andrewa ( talk) 19:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to re-open RfC. Andrewa ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Request to re-open RfC". Thank you. Andrewa ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.As is evident, there is simply no formal obligation by the closer to respond to queries about their closing action or invitations to re-open a closure. My position has been stated above: I closed down the RfC, and if other editors find the closing "controversial" or in any way "irregular," they could use Wikipedia's relevant process of appeal from that point onwards. If we start reopening closings as soon as a "controversy" appears to arise, as you say your experience has been, then we dilute the significance of the appeals process! So, I honestly fail to see where a "behavioral issue" can be identified here. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, please note that nationally known critic means a critic writing for a national publication. This was verified in a recentish discussion at WikiProject Film if you go through the talkpage archive. Also widely released can refer to dvd releases (internationally) and international tv broadcasting, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your edits at User talk:Serial Number 54129, I would ask that you take another look at WP:REDACT as it differs from WP:OWNTALK. I'm sure you've seen this before but I'd like to avoid trouble here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The page is called Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra. The page sounds like an advertisement for this mans cure for cancer. He claims he can cure cancer with herbs. Is that even possible?
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peg_Norman_(2nd_nomination) -- NL19931993 ( talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sir, could you please review the draft article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan and provide Inputs. I am so sorry if the overkill of references infuriated you to a harsh delete, I hope this article is much cleaner now. thank you Adapongaiya ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello: This did not make sense, so I reverted it. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Shane Greenstein at Harvard Business School has authored several studies on Wikipedia’s reliability, and says that the encyclopedia needs a variety of sources to maintain a neutral perspective and avoid becoming one-sided. “You need multiple editors to debate and identify different points of view, and in the absence of a large supply of those editors Wikipedia won’t perform very well,” he says.
Hi, the date when 2Joules was blocked is not important as it is the date that the sockpuppet master (the real editor) was blocked that counts and renders all subsequent edits invalid. The real editor is user:FreeatlastChitchat who was blocked on 6 March last. Regarding the AFDs only those with no delete votes can be closed due to the sock nomination, the others have to continue but with the sock's comments struck out, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
[A reason to Speedy Keep an article nominated for deletion is when] the nominator is banned. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed. As you can see, the only reason an AfD can be speedily deleted (and the article speedily kept) is when the AfD was tabled by a banned editor. SK4 says nothing about the kind of responses the AfD attracts. So, there is no basis for your description of when an AfD is closed down.
Just e-mail me. Deb ( talk) 13:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't modify my statement as was done here. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Gnome, just wanted to compliment your work here. I was expecting a close along the lines of "no consensus" but it was clear you put effort into a well crafted closing. Thanks for that hard work! Springee ( talk) 04:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Didn't really want to drop an open comment onto the AfD talk page, but I was wondering (as someone with fairly different AfD views) whether you thought that Admin closers were poor at closing what should be merges and making them redirects and, in effect, saying someone else do the merging. This seems to bring two problems - i) Worst, it risks no content actually getting transferred if no user steps up to move it, ii) it gives incorrect judgements, meaning any assessment based partially off an AfD score will be wrong (more in my head as i've been wandering around WP:PERM, I suspect). Let me know if you think I'm more than mildly making a mountain out of a molehill, but I've been seeing a couple of cases per week, and I guess I participate in around 7% of AfDs. Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent contributions. I'm rather looking for cases or criticizing than able to write integral pages. Xx236 ( talk) 10:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
About this...
First, this was not a proper RfC but a side discussion and there are only 8 !votes.
If you look at the !votes:
Note that the last ~vote in that section, by Zubin12, is clearly about the RfC question above; it often happens when discussions get split, that people !vote in the wrong place.
There is clearly no consensus about how much detail to include. This could perhaps be settled by an actual RfC focused on the question. Please reconsider your close. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
While there's not a clear agreement with the exact closure nor the process leading to it, there's equally no consensus that the close was improper per WP:BADNAC.Not surprised. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Gnome. I undid your edit on this AFD where you changed my Keep !vote to a Comment. Perhaps you saw my (indented) discussions with other !voters, or recalled seeing my !vote on the DRV, and thought I had voted before, but it was actually my one and only vote in the AFD. I recognize you meant well, and appreciate the need for such gnoming work. However it is disconcerting to check back on an AFD one has participated in and find one's !vote "disenfranchised" so to speak by someone else editing the words you have entered. Might I suggest in future situations like this you strike but leave in the prior editor's actual words, and drop them a note on their talk page why you feel changing their words is needed, all to increase visibility that their contribution to the discussion has been changed. It helps flag for attention that someone else felt a change was necessary, allows for a discussion whether this is truly the case, and avoids the feeling of "WTF, I didn't mean to say that...wait, I didn't say that, someone else changed my remarks!". Cheers, Martinp ( talk) 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm commenting not because of what I stated here, but because I am wondering why you chose to close the RfC when there has been animosity between us in the past. I would not close an RfC if the starter of the RfC was someone I've expressed animosity toward in the past and who expressed animosity towards me in turn. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, he was a sockpuppet master not a sockpuppet and was not blocked at that time. WP:DWS is an essay not even a guideline so can you point to any policy that backs up your revert of my edit, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey. You put a question to me, or at least some sort of comment that prompted me to reply. The discussion was closed shortly after, so here it is again.
No, I do not. And yes, I will. cygnis insignis 11:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi The Gnome. I posted several sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nxt (3rd nomination) after you commented. Would you review the sources I provided? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You made changes (many but not all improvements) to Suhai Aziz Talpur leaving the following edit summary: "removed unnecessary language indicators abt source being in English (default language here), fawning and adulatory verbiage e.g. quotes from media, irrelevancies, and solicisms ; added wikilinks; wikified sources, not afraid of listing dates in full and easy-to-the eye text; removed empty ext.link"
The article has been worked on by several editors whose native language is not English. It should have been possible for you to improve their work, and describe your process, with a more collegial edit summary. HouseOfChange ( talk) 09:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
:) Sammartinlai ( talk) 05:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi The Gnome, thank you for closing the discussion at WP:RSN. I just wanted to clarify that the discussion was a plain discussion, and not a RfC. Could you please amend the closing summary and the archiving template to reflect this? Thanks. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: Participants in this discussion have objected to the use of the referenced text in the Wikipedia article on the basis of WP:WEIGHT, and other similar, contextual arguments but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion.
"but such objections fall outside the scope of the discussion")? — Newslinger talk 07:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
acknowledging your grace under fire, and offering comradely sympathy about the ease with which we humans can fail to miss the slick elision of facts by editors with whom we usually agree on political questions. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, The Gnome. About here I just wanted to make clear that I'm not a user who writes articles to please Capcom or to receive money from it. I gave very specific reasons for the creation of that article (which I presume you didn't care to read in the discussion) and probably, when time will be right, RE Engine will reappear, just as one of the users pointed out. Also, "fans of video games often create articles in the manner of shrines", sounds a bit like a confirmation bias generalization, don't you think? I just wanted to take off the pebble from the shoe, since you rightly wanted to express yourself for a "Delete". Goodbye. Lone Internaut ( talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Greek withdrawal from the eurozone into
Withdrawal from the Eurozone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear Gnome – in the talk page for Paul Samuelson I questioned the appropriateness of a section which I think you had a hand in. I meant to ping you but forgot. Colin.champion ( talk) 09:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gnome. I noticed you said the following on the talk page of the article on Julius Evola:
The question concerns the use of the text as a source for Evola's ideas - and here the Merelli article is not an arbitrary, speculative, personal take, but based firmly on the very text she's citing:
Compare, please, the text in Merelli ("Evola went so far as to justify rape as a natural expression of male desire," etc) with the text in Evola's " Eros and the Mysteries of Love" ("If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her ... Why God allows girls to be raped during wars or disorders. Apart from the unfathomable nature of heavenly designs and a hint of possible compensation in the afterlife for sufferings on earth (supposing that the rape of a girl amounts only to suffering), [we] wonder whether the girls in question had not sinned by their pride in showing their virtue," etc). No reasonable person could argue that Merelli misrepresents Evola's ideas.
It's not clear how the text you referenced implies Evola justified rape "as a natural expression of male desire". The first sentence, concerning male desire, is descriptive, not normative. The latter sentences, on the other hand, do not contain the question of "male desire" at all. At most they suggest justification due to a "lack of virtue" in the victims, not "male desire" in the perpetrators. Did you read the text you cited carefully? 160.39.234.202 ( talk) 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The key word here is "natural," i.e. that Evola considers rape practically normatively.
The deepest factor [in rape] is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her. I don't see how this assessment is normative at all. Quite frankly, your claim is very offensive because it implies that psychologists who agree with this assessment are "justifying rape". 160.39.234.202 ( talk) 06:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
this non-issueIf it's a non-issue, why has it been raised again and again by multiple editors throughout article's history (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and our current discussion)? Trying to brush it off as a "non-issue" is dishonest.
Hi, I see that you’ve deleted this article because the subject doesn’t meet the criteria. But the references provided was Korean national level newspaper and google level search engine whom verified his albums and music appeared on National TV. Could you please help me to retrieve the article please? I accidentally wrote draft without knowing the subject appeared in many other Korean related article, and moved from draft to article which created this confusion, which I’ll never do. If you could even move it back to Draft stage, I will very appreciate it. Thank you. J2love ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this was technically out of line. I went there just now to strike my own !vote to userfy the page because I could see before I wrote it that it wasn't going to pass, and because I was getting (and still am getting) grief over it in otherwise unrelated discussions. I was surprised to see it had been speedy-closed without citing which of the speedy keep criteria it met. Yeah, if you had shown up between when Banner withdrew his nomination and when I cast my !vote technically it would have qualified, but the fact that my !vote existed is the very reason I wanted to edit the AFD just now, and is also the reason why I'm pretty sure speedy keep was not allowed. I'm sure you did so in good faith, and I would be perfectly happy with you re-closing as soon as I strike my own !vote, but shutting it down before I get a chance to do so really doesn't seem fair. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
has run for at least seven days, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. The discussion resulted in an evidently clear Keep, while the nominator had also withdrawn the article's candidacy for deletion. Per WP:CLOSEAFD,
an editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances. Please correct me if I am in any way wrong. As to re-opening the discussion to allow you to strike off your suggestion, I'm not sure we can do this. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
at least seven days: at the time you closed the discussion, it had been open for 6 days, 0 hours, and 24 minutes, and seven days still had not passed before I wrote the above; you would have been entitled to speedy close the discussion if there were no non-keep !votes, but my !vote meant that that was not the case.
Editor
Cassianto asccused me here of edit warring in the article "
Infobox" and then removed the accusation with an edit summary stating "Cant be bothered."
My friendly suggestion to the accuser is to read up on
WP:AN3, where what is and what is not edit warring is rather clearly described. To wit, edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. Content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism
. There were never any "confrontational edits" from my part; simply a request to discuss things first (specifically about this serially contentious issue) before placing "favoring-use-of infobox" templates on the page. And of course, there were never
three reverts. For those interested in the substance of the issue, the
relevant RfC is already under way. Cheers, all. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can you give me some sources to show it is "not kosher" to change the section header for a rfc when it contradicts the rfc question. I have checked policy, and cannot find it covered. Thanks. [1] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 13:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. According to
WP:TPO we do not edit comments by other editors unless they are explicitly harmful in some way or another. Even though it was clearly obvious that you edited the comments at AfD in good faith, I undid it. Although, it is practised to edit the comments for formatting purposes. See you around
Regards, —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Cautiously editing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed [when] fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. That is precisely what I did and the whole extent of what I did. A correct format makes the work of admins a lot easier when closign down AfDs or RfCs, especially when the dialogue is extended. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
at this RfC. It would be useful if you could add your conclusions about the proposed exceptions, to indicate whether you're saying that the consensus is "no exceptions", or that there is perhaps still no consensus on some proposed exceptions such as (The The song) and (The Who album). I.e. should we execute on all, or talk more first? Dicklyon ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, please review Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and consider reopening the discussion in view of those comments. Andrewa ( talk) 19:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request to re-open RfC. Andrewa ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Request to re-open RfC". Thank you. Andrewa ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.As is evident, there is simply no formal obligation by the closer to respond to queries about their closing action or invitations to re-open a closure. My position has been stated above: I closed down the RfC, and if other editors find the closing "controversial" or in any way "irregular," they could use Wikipedia's relevant process of appeal from that point onwards. If we start reopening closings as soon as a "controversy" appears to arise, as you say your experience has been, then we dilute the significance of the appeals process! So, I honestly fail to see where a "behavioral issue" can be identified here. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 19:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, please note that nationally known critic means a critic writing for a national publication. This was verified in a recentish discussion at WikiProject Film if you go through the talkpage archive. Also widely released can refer to dvd releases (internationally) and international tv broadcasting, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your edits at User talk:Serial Number 54129, I would ask that you take another look at WP:REDACT as it differs from WP:OWNTALK. I'm sure you've seen this before but I'd like to avoid trouble here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The page is called Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra. The page sounds like an advertisement for this mans cure for cancer. He claims he can cure cancer with herbs. Is that even possible?
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peg_Norman_(2nd_nomination) -- NL19931993 ( talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sir, could you please review the draft article Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan and provide Inputs. I am so sorry if the overkill of references infuriated you to a harsh delete, I hope this article is much cleaner now. thank you Adapongaiya ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello: This did not make sense, so I reverted it. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |