User talk:Mrjulesd/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  ... (up to 100)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Biomedical (and health)

Sorry that I didn't make it clear enough. Basically, I didn't ignore those votes, but I gave them less weight. See the "Deletion, moving and featuring" section of WP:POLL — when you merely vote, or when you say essentially "I like this better" without specifying why your preference for this should translate into a better Wikipedia, or "It's clear to me" without explaining why it should also be clearer to others, you've really not helped make a decision as to which one is better for readers and editors as a whole, and when you merely say "I agree with X" without explaining why you agree, you're not attempting to add further evidence for why you and X should carry the day. Even something like "I agree with X, whose argument makes sense because of [insert relevant reason here]" is solid, because you're providing reasoning for why the vote makes sense, unlike "I agree with X".

Finally, you ask whether I discounted those votes: the answer is "not totally". While they should get a lot less weight, votes shouldn't be totally ignored as long as they're reasonably accurate and made in good faith. A closer should reward votestacking attempts (especially with sockpuppets) by discounting them completely, and fundamentally inaccurate votes should be ignored because they don't have a basis in reality (e.g. at AFD "Keep. Here's a news report about this medical discovery that was announced yesterday, and it wasn't written by one of the researchers, so it's a secondary source! Example, 20:17, 31 December 2015" and "Keep per User:Example. ThisIsaTest, 21:17, 31 December 2015"), but mere votes offered in good faith should still be considered somewhat, because they still help demonstrate the opinions of members of the community.

If I didn't answer you fully, please come back to remind me what I forgot to address. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend: I reference to [1], which referenced [2]well I don't really agree with your analysis. If you say "per Joe Bloggs", and Joe Bloggs has made particularly strong arguments, why should you have to repeat the arguments causing a wall of text? They've made strong arguments, and in the name of brevity instead of merely repeating those arguments you've chosen to reference them, it increases the clarity of the thread, and is actually beneficial. Now if Joe Bloggs didn't make strong arguments, I could understand, but this does not seem to be the case. And there seems to be no policy of guidelines which discourage "per somebody" !votes.

Overall I'm not really happy with the closure. I think at the very least it should have been "no consensus", and your end comments I found unsatisfactory. Is there any way to appeal this decision? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you merely say "per Joe Bloggs", you have contributed nothing to the discussion: you've only added a vote. As I already noted, you don't have to repeat the arguments and cause a wall of text: you can say "Support per Joe Bloggs. He's right because of X". See the heavily-supported and highly-regarded WP:NOTAVOTE essay, which rejects a heavy reliance on votes. I mean, if you want, I could change the close to "no consensus was arrived here, and closing as failure per WP:CONLIMITED" [the bit I already noted about the venue not attracting people who write about bicycles, seat belts, etc.), but the result would be the same. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:. I would like to make the following points:

(a) I have read the WP:NOTAVOTE essay, but it fails to mention "per somebody" type votes, so does not help particularly.

(b) I would prefer if you re-closed it as "no consensus". I think it might be significant if people argued that a topic was health and non biomedical, a no-consensus result would give their arguments less weight.

(c) I think I might bring up this up "per somebody" type !votes at the village pump for discussion, to see how others view these !votes. If less credence is going to be given to them then people should be forewarned, as they are commonplace and extremely logical, at least to me.

RSVP. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely will not modify my own close decision in order to weaken any specific position: such would be drastically wrong. Since such is your position, this is my final response. I leave you with the words of a small part of NOTAVOTE, to answer your other question about votes that merely support someone else's position without offering any reasoning for that support: "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend::

(a) You say I absolutely will not modify my own close decision in order to weaken any specific position, but earlier you said I mean, if you want, I could change the close to "no consensus was arrived here, and closing as failure per WP:CONLIMITED". You are not being consistent.

(b)You also say "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. But I would argue that "per somebody" votes do carry considerable reasoning, as they use the reasoning that previous participants have put forward.

Look I think I may bring this for further discussion, as these sort of decisions need be discussed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You had not yet revealed that you were asking for a different close for the purpose of weakening one side: closes must reflect consensus, rather than being twisted to fit someone's agenda. Should you request review without explicitly stating that you're just trying to get the other side to look bad, sanctions will be requested. Meanwhile, just go to AFD and try leaving "per nom" or "per [name]" votes; since I was new here, they've always been treated that way. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: No I also believe that a "no consensus" !vote is much closer to what happened. Can you honestly say that the RfC had consensus to exclude health? And if "per somebody" !votes are commonly discounted then this needs to be discussed IMO. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mrjulesd!

Happy New Year!

Mrjulesd,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA per WP:NOBIGDEAL. It was very much appreciated. The ideal of a self-administering community is an important principle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Top video game publishers

Template:Top video game publishers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cult video game

 Declined No, I do understand WP:NOTDIR. I'm sure removing the list was covered under WP:NOTDIR #1 "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." --Jtalledo (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not "loosely associated topics". They've all been cited as examples of cult video games. In an article about cult video games. I really don't understand your pov. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

good faith
... you were recipient no. 1170 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. always a pleasure. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Also for me ;) - the prize is filed under Peace on my user page, - what do you think of my latest attempt to have a bit more, in the light of good faith? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Gerda: Well I think you're always doing good work around here, and that is another example. I agree that these restrictions should be rescinded, and wish the best of luck in getting them overturned. Although I'm that familiar with the case, I think a year is long enough. Pigsonthewing seems a high quality contributor, and the sanctions seem unnecessary. My own views on infoboxes is that there should be compromises when disagreement occurs; like in the case of Frank Sinatra where the is an infobox, but it is collapsed using the {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} template which hopefully will stop disagreement. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Say it there, please, - I don't like to rely on luck. - One year? When I tried, it was three years after my legendary attack on Bach. Sinatra, fine, only those who claim I didn't respect the compromise when I confessed that I prefer nothing hidden seem to have forgotten that there was an uncollapsed infobox for eight years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK I'll make a statement. I have to agree, if there is a long standing infobox I feel it should stay; and people who remove them without agreement should be trouted! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It goes like this, when those come who (admittedly) improve an article from then on by hundreds of edits, - the promise of improvement "buys" them the right for the "editorial choice". I questioned that and was taken to arbitration enforcement. My friend Dreadstar tried to help, remember? You and talked about the right thing then. He died (in January), quite a shock for me (see my talk), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Gerda: Yes and I don't think it right. First of all there were lots of editors beforehand contributing. Secondly, removal of long standing infoboxes is bound to be contentious, and as such should go to RfC if there is much disagreement. Otherwise the ridding of infoboxes after major updates smacks me as too much of ownership really.

I think if it happens again I would really try to go the collapsing route, if the infobox is collapsed I don't see how people could object that much. Otherwise push for a RfC, although of course that could go the wrong way. Do you think these would help?

By the way I remember Dreadstar, and was sorry to hear of his demise. Although we never interacted he seemed to be a good contributor, and it was unfortunate how things ended here. But I hope you don't guilt over that, it wasn't your fault at all. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The ownership of the one who improves quality has been practically accepted, - perhaps YOU could start questioning it. (I used it for my purposes in the other direction, improving Bach cantatas to GA and giving them the infobox the former editors had not wanted. Overall, - the article quality improved ;) ) - I feel no guilt over Dreadstar's death, - his last email confirmed friendship (to our group), and that lasts. I think I would not have made my little peace proposal without thinking it's his legacy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

OK well perhaps I will! I haven't got involved in any cases with infoboxes, but obviously have been involved in some disagreements over content, like us all ;-) I know it might feel like canvassing, but if happens let me know and I'll see what I can do (probably not a lot!) Anyway it's really nice to chat a bit about things, thanks. Maybe I'll join your group some day, but I haven't been that active on here lately for various reasons. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jules. You joined our group already, by what you do ;) - The woman to whom I said that first (at the very end of a long thread, about arbitration) is now an arb and worded good motions, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Case closed as you recommended, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. But obviously you deserve the lions share of the congrats for achieveing this! All the best --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I take it ;) - Tell me, why is arbitration so complicated and wordy. I made a simple statement, - everybody could have just nodded, no? - Three years after the user did nothing wrong he was released from prison, halleluja ;) - Well, for the Witch of Pungo it took 300 years. - Befreit, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Gerda I don't know much about the case. But I think what does happen is that quite often if a substantial number of editors speak against something, especially if prominent (e.g. admins etc.) they often get their way, and the strengths of their arguments are not evaluated properly. It doesn't matter what your arguments are, if enough people are against you you're very unlikely to get far. Herd instinct perhaps?

And if it's an ArbCom case it's pretty well "set in stone". Why? Well because it's an ArbCom case people assume it's pretty major, dissuading change quite often. Also, changing the sanctions requires an element of risk, and it's easier to avoid risk by not changing anything. I don't think it's anything sinister particularly, it's just human nature to some extent, which is not always correct.

Anyway I think what happened here was a number of editors made good arguments against them, while not as many spoken in favour. So everyone who spoke against the sanctions had a part in this, though you as instigator had the most major role.

Cases like the Witch of Pungo just show how unfair things can be! Also Brefreit is a beautiful piece of music, I've just listened to it. Released indeed. All the best --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

spirale of justice

I hope there will be no reason to speak about the infoboxes case ever again, seriously. - In 2014 already I wrote "best remembered as a farce". (The case was requested because too many infoboxes were reverted, DYK?) - "Unfair" was pictured in 1510, DYK? - GFHandel (Precious 4 years ago today, left over the Bach discussion of 2013) could return now. Dreadstar can't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Another case, see discussion on the talk and FAC, removing an infobox that was in place from 14 August 2006, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That one being resolved, I really hoped it was the last one, - no, Cary Grant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong reactions was what I found when I checked our talk in your archive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Irregular chess opening

Please see the result of this complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: Both warned). If administrators notice any more reverts on this article (without talk page agreement) blocks are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

For records: this was in response to [3]. Although I reverted, I did not break 3RR. Discussion on case at [4]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Irregular chess opening for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irregular chess opening is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregular chess opening until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reader's to Readers'

Are all these edits correct? looks like a typo to me?--Moxy (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Moxy well the correct grammar is readers'. You can see it at Apostrophe

General principles for the possessive apostrophe

Summary of rules for most situations

Plural nouns already ending in s take only an apostrophe after the pre-existing s when the possessive is formed: e.g., three cats' toys.

As readers is a plural with a s they only take an apostrophe to be correct. So readers > readers' for the possessive. It's a common mistake to say reader's, but that only strictly applies to a singular reader.

Trouble is many page make this mistake, e.g. Wikipedia:Reader's index to Wikipedia, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Appendixes/Reader's guide to Wikipedia. But according to the MOS, which is based on the apsotrophe article, these are technically incorrect.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• lots to fix then. Wish people would talk after a revert.--Moxy (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• well yes. But can you persuade people easily? That is the problem. Also sometimes it's complicated, as these depend on whether you are talking about singular of pleural. So "A reader's guide..." seems correct (singular reader) but "The reader's guide" doesn't, since it implies more than one reader. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Daška McLean

Sorry. Obviously I misread that diff. Thanks for undoing me. Meters (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Meters. A vandal who vandalizes then undoes can cause a lot of confusion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"administration and namespaces dont mix"

Not a big deal but I think you misunderstood the meaning of "administration" in this case . Wikipedia:Administration.-- Moxy (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: OK I've added that one back in. But Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats ? If we added those we should add all the ones in Category:Wikipedia user access levels, but really they contain little in the way of technical information, they are far more to do with rules than anything else. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reconciling Legality of cannabis by country and Legal and medical status of cannabis?

Your feedback invited: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Reconciling_Legality_of_cannabis_by_country_and_Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mrjulesd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike V

Hi. I was asking a valid question. I was going to raise it on his talkpage, but it's locked (WTF?!), and it looks like @Mike V: has run off to avoid any accountability for his actions. I can only assume you're happy with an admin failing WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If you really have an issue with WP:ADMINACCT then I suggest you bring in up at a new thread. But whether an editor has retired or not is not business for WP:AN. I feel I have consensus with DoRD on this issue. Please leave the current thread closed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)