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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We seemed to have had the same idea just now lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the 3 edits by The Newseum, but in case you missed it they intentionally inserted a link into a previous response. This may mark a single user, or there could be a burst of shill accounts promoting this site over the next few days / weeks. Not sure where it would need to be reported for monitoring as it could be very disruptive if multiple links across multiple articles are ghosted this way. Koncorde (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again. An editor adds the victim names. Along comes WWGB to remove the victim names. I have never heard of VanEman, the editor who adds the names. VanEman is just an editor at Wikipedia—not someone involved in the dispute over victim names. Soon, either WWGB or another regular disputant will revert, cite "status quo ante", and start an RfC. Do you not see that this is disruptive? I have restored the victim names. But I consider myself to be taking a hands-off approach because I am not initiating the adding of victim names. I favor the inclusion of victim names. But I am willing to refrain from initiating the adding of victim names. As I have already mentioned I have never initiated the adding of victim names to articles. The disruption arises when a regular disputant initially adds or initially removes victim names. This is planned disruption. It occurs at article after article. WWGB and a few other regular disputants use a well-rehearsed procedure to create this drama at article after article. The solution to this problem is obvious: regular participants in this dispute must butt out of editing the article to initially add or initially remove victim names. Other editors should decide on their own whether the article is to contain victim names or not. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"Their removal keeps it out of the article while the discussion goes on"Why can't editors not involved in the dispute keep it out of the article? Because we thrive on the drama of a disruptive RfC over victim names at every article that might contain victim names? Anyone should be allowed to weigh into an RfC. But the present standard operating procedure forces the immediate creation of an RfC. At the time of removing victim names the standard operating procedure is to cite "status quo ante", forcing the immediate creation of an RfC. It would be hard to dream up a more disruptive approach to addressing the question of victim names. And bear in mind that this has come up many times in Wikipedia's long history. There is nothing wrong with the question. I respect the point of view that victim names should be omitted—although I disagree with that view. In the numerous times this question has arisen, it was resolved with little fanfare, generally without an RfC. Editors argued for a bit and then consensus was declared. The present well-rehearsed procedure maximizes drama and disruption. This is disproportionately caused by a very few editors. All of us should be told that we are not to be adding victim names or removing victim names from articles. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
All of us should be told that we are not to be adding victim names or removing victim names from articles.That is a proposal for a multi-editor topic ban. Proposals for topic bans are not presented on the user talk pages of admins. The proposal has exactly zero chance of passing, so many would see it as disruptive, but it should at least be made in the proper way in the proper venue. I have reverted your re-revert pending consensus to include the disputed content. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"That is a proposal for a multi-editor topic ban. Proposals for topic bans are not presented on the user talk pages of admins."I will agree to not add victim names if you will agree not to remove victim names. I think that would reduce disruption. Can we agree to that? Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that people who have a strong feeling one way or the other should not be allowed to add or remove the names.You and I have just as much right to participate in the decision making process as anybody else, and I choose to exercise that right. What you do is entirely up to you, provided you operate within the standard process that has been explained to you countless times by many experienced editors including admins. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
BTW Bus stop, I see you have made no comment about the closure of the Saugus article, but you might take note of this: the names were immediately added to the article by WWGB - one of the people you regard as a committed opponent of such names. You might give them a little credit for this gracious action. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a war, Its not a fight where there is a winning side, the only way to win is to reach a consensus regardless of whether or not you agree with it. We show up, discuss how to improve an article, even if the changes discussed go against what you want you can still help perfect the article to be the best it can be. If you are tired of this there was a proposal workshop that was opened, and could use a push from a couple more editors. It may or may not bring what you want to come to pass but the point is it would give us a lasting answer to a lot of potential rfc's. (Also don't revert reverts without consensus please. Thats just asking for an edit war) --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. An IP editor keeps upgrading a conspiracy claim at Camus article without any consensus at Talk. [1],[2],[3]. Can you pls have a look? Thanks. Cinadon36 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC) PS-one more time. [4]Cinadon36 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC) Just for the record, one more. [5] Cinadon36 07:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi MelanieN. IP-user is still trying to push his version without consensus. [6]. Cinadon36 08:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Melanie - hope all's well with you. I'd like to request an IP range block for 146.244.137 and 146.244.138. The range has been used repeatedly over several years for vandalism. See [7] for their history of vandalism, which goes back at least to September 2016. As you can see, a short block won't help, as they come back after long intervals to do the same vandalism. There do appear to be good faith edits mixed in as well, though - not sure what the best solution would be, actually. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Melanie, just dropping a note that I think you forgot to update the protection template on Peep and the Big Wide World. I thought about fixing it myself, but I don't know the protection templates/syntax very well. Thanks! [Belinrahs|talk ⁄ edits] 23:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi I have seen you have decided to lock Rui_Pereira_(architect). You have left an unreferenced BLP violation on the page. As you know BLP isn't a flexible policy, could you please fix this. 104.249.224.35 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
How am I supposed to know? Google doesn’t tell me which sources are reliable and which ones are not. Does wiki have a list of reliable sources that we are only supposed to use? Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The unrelated kinsman: Don't feel bad; of course you don't know. You will learn, and in the meantime no blame to you for being new here. Keep editing, and don't take it hard if some of your edits are reverted. At first until you learn your way around, try to stick to adding factual material - such as is reported in regular news sources - rather than opinion. As for Reliable Sources, our general definition is sources that have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For example the New York Times does have such a reputation and is considered reliable; the National Enquirer does not and is not. One list rating sources is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As for the Washington Times in particular, take a look at its Wikipedia article, which gives some idea of why most of us don't accept it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well M. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
Please see new note on your DYK review. Also, the merge tag is still on the article, so it shouldn't get a green tick. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mel! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020, hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
I noticed you're a big shot here, can you help expand the sources for this one with me and perhaps help me tackle the overhaul to Richmond City Council (Richmond, California).Ndołkah (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (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. |