→British possessions: Reply Tag: Reply |
→British possessions: fix formatting of Wee Curry Monster's pings. Also clarify that I was the one who edited this page before; Largoplazo had nothing to do with it. |
||
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) |
||
:::I suggest you both use the [[WP:WLH]] tool and you will find that link spammed to multiple articles and it is very much a case of [[WP:OVERLINKING]]. As a constructive editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I am disappointed neither of you have chosen to assume good faith but seen fit to come to my talk page to deliver a lecture and accusations of misconduct. This was not an appropriate use of my talk page. |
:::{{Ping|Largoplazo}} {{Ping|W.andrea}} I suggest you both use the [[WP:WLH]] tool and you will find that link spammed to multiple articles and it is very much a case of [[WP:OVERLINKING]]. As a constructive editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I am disappointed neither of you have chosen to assume good faith but seen fit to come to my talk page to deliver a lecture and accusations of misconduct. This was not an appropriate use of my talk page. |
||
:::Further, please feel free to point to anywhere or anything that has "British possession status" or has had it in the past. I'll wait. Its an ephemeral term, loosely applied to territory that was part of the British Empire, which has no precision in its definition. It is not suitable encyclopedic content and removing [[WP:OVERLINKING]] is well within policy. |
:::Further, please feel free to point to anywhere or anything that has "British possession status" or has had it in the past. I'll wait. Its an ephemeral term, loosely applied to territory that was part of the British Empire, which has no precision in its definition. It is not suitable encyclopedic content and removing [[WP:OVERLINKING]] is well within policy. |
||
:::I'll also thank you that in future per [[WP:TPG]] you do not refactor my talk page. [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> 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
:::{{Ping|W.andrea}} I'll also thank you that in future per [[WP:TPG]] you do not refactor my talk page. [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> 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::Firstly, per [[WP:TPG]], fixing formatting/layout is fine: |
::::Firstly, per [[WP:TPG]], fixing formatting/layout is fine: |
||
::::{{tqb|'''Examples of appropriately editing others' comments''' Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read [including] fixing indentation levels ... Fixing layout errors, which could include: Moving a comment for chronological order within a reply sequence}} |
::::{{tqb|'''Examples of appropriately editing others' comments''' Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read [including] fixing indentation levels ... Fixing layout errors, which could include: Moving a comment for chronological order within a reply sequence}} |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::::The same goes for your latest comment too, so I'm going to fix those pings as well. They're also not indented properly, not that it matters. |
::::The same goes for your latest comment too, so I'm going to fix those pings as well. They're also not indented properly, not that it matters. |
||
::::— [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
::::— [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
{{Ping|Largoplazo}} {{Ping|W.andrea}} |
Revision as of 18:07, 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)
- @Largoplazo: @W.andrea: I suggest you both use the WP:WLH tool and you will find that link spammed to multiple articles and it is very much a case of WP:OVERLINKING. As a constructive editor who's been on Wikipedia since 2007, I am disappointed neither of you have chosen to assume good faith but seen fit to come to my talk page to deliver a lecture and accusations of misconduct. This was not an appropriate use of my talk page.
- Further, please feel free to point to anywhere or anything that has "British possession status" or has had it in the past. I'll wait. Its an ephemeral term, loosely applied to territory that was part of the British Empire, which has no precision in its definition. It is not suitable encyclopedic content and removing WP:OVERLINKING is well within policy.
- @W.andrea: I'll also thank you that in future per WP:TPG you do not refactor my talk page. [1] WCMemail 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, per WP:TPG, fixing formatting/layout is fine:
Examples of appropriately editing others' comments Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read [including] fixing indentation levels ... Fixing layout errors, which could include: Moving a comment for chronological order within a reply sequence
- The new Reply tool considers the signature as the end of a comment, which put your ping out of order when I replied, so that's why I fixed it.
- The same goes for your latest comment too, so I'm going to fix those pings as well. They're also not indented properly, not that it matters.
- — W.andrea (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)