User talk:A Fellow Editor/Archive 1

[ previous ]     9 April 2013 – 22 November 2017     [ next ]

Archive 1

Post new entries below preceding ones, please.

Thanks. :  }

–A Fellow Editor–

Talk:Lada (disambiguation)

Greetings. Thanks for your input; I think your suggestion of adding additional hatnote links to Lada sounds fair. But is this specific formatting really helpful? Please remember that talk pages should be readable by as many users as possible, per MOS:ACCESS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf Re: "is this specific formatting really helpful?" – Well ... by my reckoning it is. I made a specific conscious point of not bullet pointing it so as to discourage my outdented addition from getting interpreted as a freestanding list point. I wanted to encourage it to be seen as flowing from the discussion I outdented it from. Another factor I took into consideration was not wanting to put too much visual emphasis on it (ie to make a 'point' of it with bullet points). And, for-future-reference, my general feeling about folks refactoring the talkpage entries of others tends to run close to my views on it here. With of course exceptions regarding one's own userspace, I think it's generally a good idea to suggest change before presuming to restyle another editor's talkpage communication.

I suspect I helped 'lead-the-way' into the interaction though when I failed to explicitly note in my edit summary—"formatting tweak for better thread clarity"[1]—that I was specifically reformatting just my own input. Soon after I'd committed the edit I realized that, "refactoring my own comment for better thread clarity", probably would have been a better way to phrase it. Less chance of it being taken as a general precedent that way.

BTW, the impetus for making that edit in the first place was that I realized {{outdent}} had ended up taking my comment a leftward step beyond the root position of the discussion I was replying to. The template presumes the conversations are starting from a '0' position; however in the case of a !vote format where folks are consistently indenting one step right with a bulleted boldface prefix it ended up looking weird to me – like I'd overshot an imaginary left margin. So I bumped it all right a step as a courtesy to better line up with the offerings of others. And intentionally did not use a bullepoint so that it would be more readily clear to readers that it wasn't a freestanding point but rather a continuation of a discussion under another's point.

Something I'm a fan of which you night want to explore using in the future is the format where one explicitly separates the !votes from threaded discussion by setting up separate titled subsections for such from the start. I've found that including a brief 'local style guide' can help when opening sections that can be expected to take on !vote aspects. Declare up front whether !votes and comments are to be intermixed or separated into subsections and I think it even helps to lead a bit by suggesting specific preferred prefixes to have in play; especially if one is asking for group input on non-binary choices. Basically when opening offer some clear explicit scaffolding for stuff to then grow on. Kinda' like arranging the furniture and accoutrements of a meeting/gathering space before invited guests arrive.

--A Fellow Editor-- 23:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

note

MfD nomination of User:A Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017

User:A Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:A Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've opined that it should be deleted, but it seems only fair to suggest you save your last additions to the page on your computer so you have them if that version does get deleted here. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything useful is in the history at User_talk:Drmies so saving it is not necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, please pardon my late reply. I would really quite like to apply your advice to archive the material on my own local hardware. However the seven day MfD process was summarily aborted after less than nine hours had passed (ie before I'd been allowed time to offer any rebuttal, let alone to archive anything). I've been attempting to address here the hasty closure, but the closer so far has been, IMO, dragging their feet.

Thanks for your time and attention, ––A Fellow Editor– 10:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion, and the admins commenting there, including Premeditated Chaos, appear to share the view of Johnuniq above, that your annotations weren't major and you should be able to remember the gist of them. I'm going to join them, and folks at Drmies' talk, in suggesting you seriously consider dropping this. I don't believe Drmies behaved as inappropriately as you appear to think, or have thought. Also, I agree with the advice not to think of Jimbo as a court of last resort. He doesn't run this place, even if he had a track record of caring much about complaints made on his talk. If after thought you do still wish to pursue a complaint, you've been advised to go to one of the admin noticeboards or to Arbcom (usually advice is to try AN/I before Arbcom, but I am no expert). You can there link to diffs or the final state of the section at User talk:Drmies, using the page history. If you need to point out Drmies' edits to the now-deleted version you had in your user space (I think the people advising you at User talk:Premeditated Chaos haven't noticed that you want to discuss those edits too), then mention them in your report: all admins can see those diffs. But I do hope you'll decide against pursuing this. For one thing, I think you're blowing the time of night (your time) out of proportion, forgetting that editors are spread all over the world and indeed have varying schedules (it's currently 5:45 am where I am). And it is part of an admin's duties to assess consensus, including speedy closing where they judge appropriate. I hope that helps, but please think carefully. Remember that any report will bring scrutiny of your actions also, including the article material that Drmies removed and you defended, and its sourcing, as well as your response to Drmies' actions. That's the way it is at the noticeboards. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: You may not have seen, but there has been a post at Drmies' talk saying he won't be on-wiki again till some time next week. So be aware of that whatever you decide to do. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)