Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →WP:AN: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:Personally I don't think you've done anything wrong in your protection requests - I would have done the same thing. I don't agree with the reasons for the requests being declined. The problem is this is a low-traffic article, meaning talk page discussion is rather slow. I think all we can do at this juncture is restore the text if it's removed and encourage a talk page discussion per [[WP:BRD]] to encourage a consensus. If a consensus determines it should be removed, so be it. I've added the page to my watchlist to help encourage a proper consensus on the talk page. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
:Personally I don't think you've done anything wrong in your protection requests - I would have done the same thing. I don't agree with the reasons for the requests being declined. The problem is this is a low-traffic article, meaning talk page discussion is rather slow. I think all we can do at this juncture is restore the text if it's removed and encourage a talk page discussion per [[WP:BRD]] to encourage a consensus. If a consensus determines it should be removed, so be it. I've added the page to my watchlist to help encourage a proper consensus on the talk page. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::OK, thank you. I do not have a dog in this proverbial fight aside from advocating for [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]], but the amount of edit-warring on the page caught my attention. Of note, without me wanting to cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], you will notice that a different Admin in the recent changlog removed the contentious part of the article whilst simply stating in their commit "unsourced", having clearly neither made any effort to check the sources, nor to visit the Talk page. So, now this is three Admins who are exhibiting clear bias on this page. The more I dip my toes into Wikipedia, the more I see this. I am hesitant to engage in anything remotely political, as I believe that Wikipedia NPOV processes should theoretically be able to nip most debates in the bud, as there isn't really [[WP:TRUTH]] to be had anyway. By the way, I noticed your Sanger userbox, and remember his interviews and writings at the time. Cheers :) [[User:Top5a|Top5a]] ([[User talk:Top5a|talk]]) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
::OK, thank you. I do not have a dog in this proverbial fight aside from advocating for [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]], but the amount of edit-warring on the page caught my attention. Of note, without me wanting to cast [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], you will notice that a different Admin in the recent changlog removed the contentious part of the article whilst simply stating in their commit "unsourced", having clearly neither made any effort to check the sources, nor to visit the Talk page. So, now this is three Admins who are exhibiting clear bias on this page. The more I dip my toes into Wikipedia, the more I see this. I am hesitant to engage in anything remotely political, as I believe that Wikipedia NPOV processes should theoretically be able to nip most debates in the bud, as there isn't really [[WP:TRUTH]] to be had anyway. By the way, I noticed your Sanger userbox, and remember his interviews and writings at the time. Cheers :) [[User:Top5a|Top5a]] ([[User talk:Top5a|talk]]) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
== WP:AN == |
|||
Concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1150016190&oldid=1150011791&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffmode=source this edit]: if I thought it were a real possibility that I might (or might be perceived to) cause disruption on MOSBIO by discussing GENSEX topics, I would not have filed for the limited exception (and I spent a full week in discernment before doing so). WP editing is a privilege, and I value that privilege too much to risk it even to contribute to a limited domain where my participation to date has been all-gain, no pain for the project. I am confident that the one month is enough time to establish new habits, as long as I monitor myself. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:22, 15 April 2023
|
Oopsie
My apologies. I broke my glasses today, and was using an inferior pair. I apologize for undoing your correct revert. I get it. Sorry. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}
17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit?
On the glossary page the hash was changed from "Legit" to "legit", and since hashes are case sensitive #Legit links to a non-existing hash. This means that the link is broken. My edit fixed the link, but for some reason you reverted it back to the broken version which makes absolutely no sense. But maybe you can tell me why you prefer a broken link to a working link. Lerura (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I didn't realise it was lower case in the main article. Relax. — Czello 09:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Shane-Miz-Snoop
How do we address this? The sources state that Miz-Snoop was done on the fly after Shane's injury, so does it count as one match or 2? Miz-Shane was the plan, Miz-Snoop was the replacement, that is clear. This is a weird situation, and it's not like this kinda thing happens every day, so we don't exactly have a template to go off of. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think, given the unusual nature of the match, we simply have to go with whatever sources say. From what I can see sources just say Snoop pinned Miz, with no mention of a no contest. — Czello 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess so. This was just a strange situation all the way around, and I was just looking for a fair way to point out the match was supposed to be Miz-Shane. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Vjmlhds: I get that, and I appreciate it ultimately though I think we can't interpret the situation beyond anything the sources say. — Czello 07:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess so. This was just a strange situation all the way around, and I was just looking for a fair way to point out the match was supposed to be Miz-Shane. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Page Protections re: Corporate Memphis
Hello! As you are a far more experienced editor than I, may I ask what I am doing wrong with asking for semi-protection on the Corporate Memphis page? I made two requests for indefinite semi-protection on account of severe levels of Wikipedia:POVPUSH often by ephemeral IP editors (and sometimes even registered editors) on the page, and both were dismissed by Admins (you can check the recent request for protection page logs for both Admin responses by admins Deepfriedokra and El_C). Also, if you check on the edit history of the Corporate Memphis page itself, as well as the Talk page, you can see the clear level of POV pushing, where users want to remove a certain term that is extant within over half of the sources used on the page. Even if they wish to remove the term from the page, that would invalidate most of the sourcing on the page, necessitating scrapping much of the page itself. I am having difficulty understanding why the page will not even be granted semi-protection, when it probably requires, in actuality, extended protection. Should also note the increase in frequency in which WP:PUS are also added. Thank you! Top5a (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think you've done anything wrong in your protection requests - I would have done the same thing. I don't agree with the reasons for the requests being declined. The problem is this is a low-traffic article, meaning talk page discussion is rather slow. I think all we can do at this juncture is restore the text if it's removed and encourage a talk page discussion per WP:BRD to encourage a consensus. If a consensus determines it should be removed, so be it. I've added the page to my watchlist to help encourage a proper consensus on the talk page. — Czello 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. I do not have a dog in this proverbial fight aside from advocating for WP:NPOV and WP:V, but the amount of edit-warring on the page caught my attention. Of note, without me wanting to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, you will notice that a different Admin in the recent changlog removed the contentious part of the article whilst simply stating in their commit "unsourced", having clearly neither made any effort to check the sources, nor to visit the Talk page. So, now this is three Admins who are exhibiting clear bias on this page. The more I dip my toes into Wikipedia, the more I see this. I am hesitant to engage in anything remotely political, as I believe that Wikipedia NPOV processes should theoretically be able to nip most debates in the bud, as there isn't really WP:TRUTH to be had anyway. By the way, I noticed your Sanger userbox, and remember his interviews and writings at the time. Cheers :) Top5a (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:AN
Concerning this edit: if I thought it were a real possibility that I might (or might be perceived to) cause disruption on MOSBIO by discussing GENSEX topics, I would not have filed for the limited exception (and I spent a full week in discernment before doing so). WP editing is a privilege, and I value that privilege too much to risk it even to contribute to a limited domain where my participation to date has been all-gain, no pain for the project. I am confident that the one month is enough time to establish new habits, as long as I monitor myself. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)