Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) ββHappy π Adminship!!: ft if I may |
Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:::::::::: Did you know that I nominated for DYK (not my article) in February, hoping that it might become a fitting comment: ... that [[Richard Dehmel]] ''(pictured)'' said that "'''[[Befreit]]'''", the [[Lied]] setting of his poem by [[Richard Strauss]], was "a little bit too soft compared to the text, but it appeals to most people"? "Befreit" means "freed, released, liberated". |
:::::::::: Did you know that I nominated for DYK (not my article) in February, hoping that it might become a fitting comment: ... that [[Richard Dehmel]] ''(pictured)'' said that "'''[[Befreit]]'''", the [[Lied]] setting of his poem by [[Richard Strauss]], was "a little bit too soft compared to the text, but it appeals to most people"? "Befreit" means "freed, released, liberated". |
||
:::::::::: In your response to the single question that broke the silence, did you intentionally link only to the second motion? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::::::: In your response to the single question that broke the silence, did you intentionally link only to the second motion? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::: Yes, since that was the ambiguous one. Doesn't matter much, I think. Nice article :) [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis#top|talk]]) 00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==DYK for Ruth Lehmann== |
==DYK for Ruth Lehmann== |
Revision as of 00:42, 3 May 2016
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
A kitten for you!
Thanks for helping with the oversight thing!
~ RobTalk 23:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: No problem! If only all such requests came with a kitten...Β :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would have given you a puppy, but I didn't think your helpfulness quite rose to that level. ~ RobTalk 02:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I'll endeavor to remain at a moderate kittenful level of helpfulness. I mean, I'd have to take a puppy
outsideto ANI like, every three hours. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)- (watching:) I just remembered that I was taken to ANI (Great Dismal Swamp) only once, - I was luckier with arbitration, - haven't found a redirect for that yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, someone did do this for AEΒ ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- No redirect, though, and - judging from my experience - too weak. AE broke my pride, DYK? (I was determined to not appeal, until this) Find something strong, because I still feel ashamed that it could happen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that WP:WATERTORTURE would have to be a dab page...Β ;)
- No doubt AE and ARCA are frustrating places to find yourself in. This "come cap-in-hand back to the group that sanctioned you in the first place" thing is indeed kind of galling, though we're not really set up to do it any other way. I guess at least an appeal a year later goes to a new set of arbs... Maybe some arbs need a poke to go look at Andy's again, there's a lot of open business at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- AE is a complete waste of time, as far as I observed. To be avoided at all cost, even your pride. - Tomorrow we see another one of my GAs on DYK. At the height of the infobox-cold-war, I could not have added an infobox to it, - we came a long way, compared to sweetness such as this, - tell your colleagues, with chocolateΒ ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- So happy the reflected friend is back, - any image of a happily dancing cat? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Four years ago, we set QAI member #1 free (free to found the project). I decorated my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I enjoy the soft music of this silenceΒ ;)
- Surprising but welcomeΒ :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Did you know that I nominated for DYK (not my article) in February, hoping that it might become a fitting comment: ... that Richard Dehmel (pictured) said that "Befreit", the Lied setting of his poem by Richard Strauss, was "a little bit too soft compared to the text, but it appeals to most people"? "Befreit" means "freed, released, liberated".
- In your response to the single question that broke the silence, did you intentionally link only to the second motion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, since that was the ambiguous one. Doesn't matter much, I think. Nice articleΒ :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Surprising but welcomeΒ :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- No redirect, though, and - judging from my experience - too weak. AE broke my pride, DYK? (I was determined to not appeal, until this) Find something strong, because I still feel ashamed that it could happen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, someone did do this for AEΒ ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- (watching:) I just remembered that I was taken to ANI (Great Dismal Swamp) only once, - I was luckier with arbitration, - haven't found a redirect for that yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case I'll endeavor to remain at a moderate kittenful level of helpfulness. I mean, I'd have to take a puppy
- I would have given you a puppy, but I didn't think your helpfulness quite rose to that level. ~ RobTalk 02:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Ruth Lehmann
On 19 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Lehmann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that cell biologist Ruth Lehmann studied maternal effect genes in fruit flies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Lehmann. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ruth Lehmann), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Rather disappointed in the result on TfD Template: Anthony Marinelli
I'm rather disappointed in your rulingTemplate:Anthony Marinelli TFD to reinforce a local consensus, based upon an eassy WP:TCREEP over the guideline WP:ADVICEPAGE which reads in part:
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay
Emphasis mine
Additionally, an earlier RfC on the matter failed to gain consensus, without mentioning that the restriction would already violate existing guidelines.
I also note that you have factored declared paid editing into your decision. That community is currently bending over backwards to comply with the Wikipedia guideline (and outing in a separate category) which are more stringent than that of the Foundation. I can understand a prejudice over undeclared editing, but carrying this prejudice over to declared editors is counter-productive to the will of the Foundation.
Thanks for reading TfD and sticking your neck out, but I don't agree with your logic, or that the consensus was reached to override an existing guideline. 009o9 (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @009o9: Quite honestly, I think you're cherry-picking advice. In fact, I see you made essentially this argument in the TfD already, and it did not gain consensus. The advice that best fits this situation is at WP:NAVBOX.
- Now, I didn't say paid editing had an effect on the outcome, only noted that the point had been raised in the discussion. Personally, I don't see much difference if you're paid to edit this or if you're Marinelli's super biggest #1 fan; the observed result of over-emphasis on a minor topic is the same. Though I do note this TfD was filed on November 10 - five months ago - originally closed and then reopened after your DRV in December, closed again in February, and now here we are in mid April. A category serving the same navigational purpose was suggested and then created on November 11. Whether or not you're being paid to keep rearguing this, a reasonable compromise was reached a day after the nomination. You can of course take this back to DRV if you like (though if it got relisted again, with the way things have been going at TfD lately, it wouldn't get re-re-closed till JuneΒ ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- The template is not the issue, nor am I being paid to keep arguing it. The issue is rulings like this one that reinforce the preferences of a few bullies who will not take their personal preference properly through WP:PROPOSAL, nor adhere the the published guidance. Basically there are a few small groups like this of marauding editors who feel that their local-consensus can override policies and guidelines. I'm finding this is also the case in the Book Project, AfC, AfD, etc.
- The nomination itself was specious, there is written guidance on navboxes, but only excluding actors (also in MOSFILM). The nomination cited no policies or guidelines and did not initially disclose that an RfC on the matter had failed six months earlier. Creating a Category and removing my client's Filmography from his Biography does not seem like a compromise to me.Diff (I may or may not have created the category anyway.)
- (talk page stalker) WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and supports the closure, in my opinion. Policies and guidelines are not the rules that make up the backbone of our site. They're documentation of existing community consensus. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which is also a policy. ~ RobTalk 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rob I don't see the deletion of navigation aids to be "improving the Wikipedia" as per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. As for WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CONLIMITED (contained within) addresses this situation succinctly.
- (talk page stalker) WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and supports the closure, in my opinion. Policies and guidelines are not the rules that make up the backbone of our site. They're documentation of existing community consensus. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which is also a policy. ~ RobTalk 20:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
- So somehow a 6 to 6 discussion is consensus for a deletion? Where is this "consensus" against all film navboxes (except directors and producers) stated? Months later, it's still not in the MOS. 009o9 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @009o9: Well, Rob is right; you're focusing on the wrong things. There's no such thing as stare decicis around here anyway. If you feel that you're being bullied, you should take your evidence to a dispute resolution venue, but in this specific instance I don't see bullying, just people disagreeing with you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis I have to respectfully disagree with your stare decicis argument, the nominating editor uses other TfDs (uncontested at that) as precedents to justify further deletions. WP:PGLIFE agrees with me on precedence, it also describes the proper way to modify guidelines so that the readership is aware of the new parameters. Supporting unwritten local consensus only makes it that much harder for volunteers to contribute and probably has a lot to do with the languishing participation you mentioned earlier.
- @009o9: Well, Rob is right; you're focusing on the wrong things. There's no such thing as stare decicis around here anyway. If you feel that you're being bullied, you should take your evidence to a dispute resolution venue, but in this specific instance I don't see bullying, just people disagreeing with you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I really don't care about the infobox template, but the WP:OWN practiced by
thesome Projects, without documenting the new rule(s) is ridiculous. 009o9 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)- OK, but if you think this is a general problem, then you need to raise it in a community venue, not in an obscure TfD or a talkpage with a few dozen watchers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried to get a couple of project level RfCs going, basically to either document the new preference or decline it. They generally die on the vine from apathy. Since it is generally administrators who close the XfDs, and the fact that they may not be aware of the (project level) problem, what forum would be appropriate? 009o9 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Float the idea at the village pump? I'll be honest, I think "general apathy" is a good description of the response you'll get, but you can always give it a shot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried to get a couple of project level RfCs going, basically to either document the new preference or decline it. They generally die on the vine from apathy. Since it is generally administrators who close the XfDs, and the fact that they may not be aware of the (project level) problem, what forum would be appropriate? 009o9 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but if you think this is a general problem, then you need to raise it in a community venue, not in an obscure TfD or a talkpage with a few dozen watchers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, I really don't care about the infobox template, but the WP:OWN practiced by
Deletion review for Template:Pro gamer achievements
User:Prisencolin has asked for a deletion review of Template:Pro gamer achievements. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. βCryptic 19:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
For the guidance you provided at my Talk page, regarding the neutrality of notifications. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Leprof 7272: No problem! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI
A discussion. Just letting you know because you previously commented about this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Photography
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women in Photography
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women artists of Middle East / North Africa
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Major capsid protein VP1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viral (check to confirmΒ |Β fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQΒ β’ Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)