Wee Curry Monster (talk | contribs) →British possessions: Reply |
Wee Curry Monster (talk | contribs) →British possessions: ping and WP:TPG |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::It's irrelevant whether you like the article. If you think it qualifies for ''deletion'', then nominate it for deletion. If it's deleted, a bot will remove the links with no effort on anyone's part. Otherwise, it's a valid article and it's valid to link to (except as provided by [[WP:OVERLINKING]]). [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
::It's irrelevant whether you like the article. If you think it qualifies for ''deletion'', then nominate it for deletion. If it's deleted, a bot will remove the links with no effort on anyone's part. Otherwise, it's a valid article and it's valid to link to (except as provided by [[WP:OVERLINKING]]). [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Follow-up: I just saw that a deletion discussion closed three months ago with "no consensus". If your unlinking is a reaction to that, it amounts to a circumvention of that outcome via a unilateral "shunning" of the article. That's improper. "Qualifies for inclusion but not to be linked to" is an outcome unlikely to emerge from any community discussion. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
::Follow-up: I just saw that a deletion discussion closed three months ago with "no consensus". If your unlinking is a reaction to that, it amounts to a circumvention of that outcome via a unilateral "shunning" of the article. That's improper. "Qualifies for inclusion but not to be linked to" is an outcome unlikely to emerge from any community discussion. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::Suggest you use the [[WP:WLH]] tool and look at what that user did, they spammed that link to multiple articles and it is very much [[WP: |
:::Suggest you use the [[WP:WLH]] tool and look at what that user did, they spammed that link to multiple articles and it is very much [[WP:OVERLINKING]]. As an editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I would have expected editors to have [[WP:AGF]] and not delivered a lecture thank you both. I have been selectively removing links where there is over linking. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 07:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{Ping|Largoplazo}} {{Ping|W.andrea}} and per [[WP:TPG]] I would prefer it if you left my talk page as I left it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&diff=1208928575&oldid=1208928243] <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 07:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:59, 20 February 2024
|
——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————
|
|
“ | Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you. So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier. --THE LAW OF THE GARBAGE TRUCK | ” |
Thank you
I just read your closing remark. Very well put. Needless to say, it was a relief when you showed up. But you're right that the talk page has become toxic, and I too have withdrawn, at least until the protection is lifted. Hopefully your (and Elemimele's) suggestion will be heeded and the page will be carefully stewarded forward in line with BLP. My sense is that we're fighting people who think his bio just isn't hinting strongly enough that he's a misogynist. I thought about appending something along those lines to your comment. But I think your statement is an excellent place to leave it. Once again, you have my thanks. Thomas B (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your efforts. I'll be on my way. It will be interesting to see what happens with the page now.Thomas B (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
British possessions
Hello. What is spammy about links to the British possession article? Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo: The article was created last October and link spammed to literally hundreds of articles in a matter of days. Cleaning up the mess is simply on my list of things to do. The British possession article really shouldn't exist, its a loose term people often use but as a "thing" doesn't exist. The article is little more than a WP:DICDEF bloated by references to and quotes from legislation. I will get round to nominating for deletion again shortly. WCMemail 13:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't unilaterally remove a link that you claim is spammy. It makes it look like you're deliberately removing relevant information, since the British possession article is well cited (supposedly). I think it'd be best to see through the deletion first, though personally I don't have much experience deleting articles. — W.andrea (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- When an article is created, it's normal, not spam, to find all the places where it's referenced in other articles and link them. In fact, the abundance of a term across many articles can indicate that an article would be valuable if the subject meets the guidelines for inclusion.
- It's irrelevant whether you like the article. If you think it qualifies for deletion, then nominate it for deletion. If it's deleted, a bot will remove the links with no effort on anyone's part. Otherwise, it's a valid article and it's valid to link to (except as provided by WP:OVERLINKING). Largoplazo (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I just saw that a deletion discussion closed three months ago with "no consensus". If your unlinking is a reaction to that, it amounts to a circumvention of that outcome via a unilateral "shunning" of the article. That's improper. "Qualifies for inclusion but not to be linked to" is an outcome unlikely to emerge from any community discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest you use the WP:WLH tool and look at what that user did, they spammed that link to multiple articles and it is very much WP:OVERLINKING. As an editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I would have expected editors to have WP:AGF and not delivered a lecture thank you both. I have been selectively removing links where there is over linking. WCMemail 07:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@Largoplazo: @W.andrea: and per WP:TPG I would prefer it if you left my talk page as I left it [1] WCMemail 07:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)