User talk:RandomCanadian/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

ArbCom Case Request Procedural note

As the filer of the case you get 1000 words at the Case request. Thank you for be conscious of these limits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Pahonia's case

@RandomCanadian: Thanks for your opinion regarding Pahonia's case. There was attempt to sort it out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Nationalistic vandalism, pushing of the Belarusian propaganda to the article of Pahonia, but you can check how much it was spammed with random information, pseudoscience theories. Administrator El_C told me that this is a Arbitration-level material. The Belarusian-side clearly will defend it because it is a Belarusian word, but it is inappropriate for the Lithuanians because it presents us as somehow worse, despite the fact that this article is centered around the Coat of arms of Lithuania. Without involvement of the mentioned anti-Lithuanian users, this dispute would have been easily solved because there already is National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia section, so why this section with a Belarusian word should expand into a separate article and this way present the Belarusian language superiority? Nationalistic absurd. I considered starting a Request for comment procedure, but clearly it would have ended in the same way as report at the AN because neutral users simply "drowned" in endless arguments there. Also, El_C noted that Wikipedia:Arbitration has words limits, so it would prevent such spamming. -- Pofka (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: As I noted there, claiming nationalistic agendas from other editors (WP:ASPERSIONS) isn't the best way to solve your problem. If other editors are engaging in disruptive behaviour (such as ignoring quality sources to push a point of view; or making personal attacks; or persistent disruption and edit warring), it should be simple to make such a request without going off on a tangent about what their motivations are. Also, ArbCom is for conduct (behaviour) issues, not for content, and your request (to make a specific page into a disambiguation page) is obviously a content request, not a conduct issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Well, as mentioned, Kazimier was tagged as a disruptive user and discussing with somebody who calls the Lithuanians as rubbish (1, 2, 3) really is impossible and requires third-party participation. I do not want to fight with him and others certainly should know that he is not a neutral user in the Eastern European topics. Also, Kazimier was banned multiple times at the Lithuanian Wikipedia (Kazimier's blocking history), so I already know about his abnormal hate for Lithuania and Lithuanians very well. He has been tagged as disruptive for a reason. You probably also heard about Lithuanian-Belarusian relations recently (hijacking of plane, etc.). Belarusian TVs presents massive anti-Lithuanian propaganda. -- Pofka (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pofka: If this is under the scope of Eastern Europe (where there are already arbitration committee measures), wouldn't this then simply become a matter for WP:Arbitration enforcement (where word limits and the like are also present)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I want that one language's name would not be superior because there are many redirect and disambiguation pages for other names of this symbol. What is the difference between Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? You think it would fit better there? I'm not really familiar with these procedures. The most important aspect that it would limit words and neutral arbiters would solve this dispute. I really do not want to engage into a nationalistic war, spamming of arguments yet again as it already happened at the talk page and AN. -- Pofka (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

comment

I didn't want to say this there, but I don't think I've ever actually opposed at RfA before. My most typical participation is to ask people who ask silly or irrelevant questions why they're asking them, to try to decrease the general level of stress for candidates. I've written an essay about it, which you can read at Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? I have been involved in multiple discussions of how we can make RfA less toxic. As I've said more than once, this feels crazy even to me, but after Edgar181, I'm not sure it's crazy. —valereee (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

arbitration case requests

Asking the arbitrators or clerks for action would probably be more fruitful than posting at the incidents noticeboard. That being said, the arbitrators will see the request and deal with it. Everyone else can just ignore it. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: The case has, already, been dismissed. The NOTHERE/RGW issue which I point out at ANI is still present and requires action despite the obvious outcome of the frivolous Arbcom request. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

They posted to enough admin talk pages that I imagine someone is considering best steps forward already. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Considering nobody had done something prior to now (the problem behaviour from that editor began before their frivolous request), I guess an additional outlook on the matter doesn't hurt.

Best steps forward doesn't necessarily mean immediate action; it can be keeping an eye on what happens next. Either the editor escalates or doesn't. But sure, more people being aware might help. Just fyi, I'm already watching for responses to this thread and so don't need a ping. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't remove case requests like that in the future, and please don't reply outside of your own section; the Arbs can do that, but others shouldn't. Thanks, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: I might have messed up the acronym (DFTT was probably what I was intending - I don't think a request like that one merited more of anyone's attention), but obviously, if the outcome is the same. Won't do if it poses problem. Wasn't aware of the other bit, my comment obviously assuming that "the usual format already appears to have been thrown by the wayside". Thanks for the tip, though I hope not to have to come to Arbcom too often, if you see what I mean. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Watson

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Watson is clearly a WP:BADNAC - please undo your close or I'll ask for it to be undone at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 08:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If you really don't like it you're free to undo it. The NC close was due to lack of significant participation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-revert and the subsequent redirect !vote, I appreciate it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you see why I didn't think delete was the right outcome... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by that comment? My issue with your close wasn't that you didn't close as a delete, considering I even mentioned a redirect in the nom, it was that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't contentious, the keep arguments literally hold zero weight. There was no consensus between delete and redirect (something which I should have made clearer in my original statement). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RNA Vaccine potential self promotion

Hi RandomCanadian, you recently answered an edit request on Talk:RNA_vaccine#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_2_March_2021 and I think rightfully determined the material in question was based on primary sources. The user has added this detail back. The username strongly suggests a personal link to the subject of the edit (Robert W Malone) and is potentially a conflict of interest/personal promotion. I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of settling these matters on wikipedia but would appreciate your input and assistance. --NullPhoenix (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@NullPhoenix: I've reverted and given a stern warning. If they keep going like this (using the same or yet another new account) you can report them to WP:ANI (and leave me a {{ping}} just so I know). I've watch-listed the RNA vaccine page for the foreseeable future. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 accepted and resolved by motion

The ‎Origins of COVID-19 case request you filed has been accepted under the name COVID-19 and resolved by motion with one remedy which supersedes the community authorized general sanctions with discretionary sanctions. Sanctions made under the previous community general sanctions are now discretionary sanctions and alerts made under the community GS are now DS alerts. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Thanks very much for the notification and for doing the behind-the-scenes clerking. I'd already noticed it via having put ARC on my watchlist. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Purple cows

We actually have a page about the tactic used by both Stonk and the fellow you were responding to, but it's not an essay. It's an article. I always respond to examples of it being used on talk pages with nonsensical statements like that, because they're every bit as relevant, logical and useful as the comment they're made in response to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Case in point: [1] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Found where some of the hate might be coming from

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/326274116#326285738 Found a reference to you on the /pol/ board of 4chan from a couple of days ago, discussing your revert on the RNA vaccine article. Don't know if they might be resonsible for some of the harassment you have been receiving. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks, that also explains a bit of the recent attention on that article (which I've now watchlisted in case these turn up again - although ECP should put a halt to that). Also, shit, people are crazy - if those are actually real people expressing sincere nutjob opinions... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I question your claim that it's already in the article

In the comment for this revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=1029294344&oldid=1029292138

you make the claim that the information in the article I linked is already in the wiki article. I claim that it is not. You claim you are being harassed. I am interested in the facts of the article. I am not interested in you. Where should we adjudicate this? (you should allow it on the talk page where I put it.

You also said "see your talk page" but you removed my comment on your talk page so that's not really participating in good faith, is it? 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I said to take a look at my user page (this is not my user page). It is already covered in the more appropriate article, see the bottom of the Wuhan lab origin section: A number of journalists and scientists have said that they dismissed or avoided discussing the lab leak theory during the first year of the pandemic as a result of perceived polarization resulting from Donald Trump's embrace of the theory.. Unless you want to add this somewhere else, but that would be needless duplication and likely off-topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

June thanks

Thank you for improving articles in June, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! I should definitively try getting back to music (it's [usually] less controversial, I find, than when politics and science mix - but you already know that...), mentioned in the edit summary here. If you're interested in writing something up about Bach, there's a nice paper about the state of court music in Köthen at the time - Hoppe, Günther (1986). "Köthener politische, ökonomische und höfische Verhältnisse als Schaffensbedingungen Bachs". Cöthener Bach-Hefte. 4. Köthen: Bach-Gedenkstätte Schloß Köthen u. Historisches Museum für Mittelanhalt: 13–62.- its in German, and although I could make sense of the most important points for my purposes, you're likely able to get the gist of it much quicker (can send it to you on request). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I'm so behind with reading that I feel it would go to waste at this time. Can't believe only one Brandenburg Concerto has an article ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Alex Rodriguez addition request followup

Hello and good day. In reference to my request, go to the Alex Rodriguez talk page for my follow up explanation for my request. It is in reference #80. The ESPN article mentions Jimmie Foxx. Thank you for your time and effort.2601:581:8402:6620:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards grind you down

And have a nice break! Bishonen | tålk 07:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC).

Agreed. Sorry I haven't been of more help here. Your contributions in this area have been better than anyone else's at combating misinformation regarding SARS-CoV-2 at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, it's encouraging to be working with other reality-based editors on this topic. I consider you one of those, —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Take care in your break --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that Vivaldi composed cello sonatas? I didn't until I took the pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 17:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Gain-of-function disruption

I think somebody (you or me?) may need to WP:RFPP that page. It's clearly gotten a lot more attention recently (see the talk page daily views graph) and a lot of random IPs/SPAs are coming out of the woodwork about that very specific line. ECP would be my request, but I don't have a ton of time to write that up atm. There is definitely consensus to keep that line in the article per the talk page. I will revert as much as I can those disruptions in the near future...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I just saw that you already did! Thank you!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:(edit conflict) It's already at RFPP but the usual regulars (El C, notably) don't seem to have noticed it. Although now we have even more evidence that protection is needed. It's just the annoying new subpage format of RFPP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW although it was since deleted I found your comment at Peach's page useful for my own understanding, possibly enough for an adaptation to be useful on the relevant article talk page (up to you, of course, but content-related discussion is usually relevant there)... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Request Tools

Hello, a while ago I renamed my 2 request scripts. I am going to delete these old js pages. Please change the links in your common.js to:

importScript('User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool]]
importScript('User:Terasail/COI Request Tool.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Terasail/COI Request Tool]]

Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 02:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the interface admin request) - if this user wants to import your new scripts that is up to them. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits in Date of index case of SARS-CoV-2

You have been actively editing the pages related to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, by citing wikipolicy to insert and revert edits relating to the inclusion/exclusion of information not sourced on MEDRS. Your reasoning has been along the lines of:

• From Diff1: "We can use newspapers for their usual expertise, which is recent events and global news (and, to some extent, they are sufficient to conclude that some mention of fringe theories is warranted, in the appropriate place). Not for FALSEBALANCE purposes on highly complex topics (virology, epidemiology, the origins of a disease) which require years of study and which are already covered in high quality sources."
• From Diff2: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." is clearly referring to scientific and medical information. I don't know how you're missing this. In either case, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDPOP are also clear that academic, peer reviewed literature is preferred, especially for topics of a scientific nature. The origin of a virus is a scientific topic, obviously."

However, your editing pattern using WP:MEDRS seems inconsistent, since the edits proposed in Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Date_of_index_case? actually go exactly in the direction of relying on MEDRS over NEWSORG. But you insist to show what to me is arbitrary or condradictory standards:

• From Diff3: "Also, I note that MEDRS is not required for everything. A newspaper (with attribution, if necessary) is enough to say "there were reports of earlier cases", although we should then use proper SCHOLARSHIP to determine how to describe those reports"

Please explain if I am misreading you. This behaviour can be indicative of WP:Gaming, in which the editor selectively enforces policies and takes advantage of loopholes (in this case, the ambiguity that WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI apply to some but not all facts). I am assumig good faith so I hope this is not what's going on, can you please respond and comment on your behavior? Forich (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: There was a recent RfC which I think you participated in and which clarified that MEDRS are not necessary for everything. As for your accusations of me being selective in my use of scholarship, see my edit here. I don't think there's a contradiction between using MEDRS for stuff like that and using newspapers (specifically, the newspaper which made the report - the same way we'd cite a primary paper if it is also cited by a secondary review) to say "there were unconfirmed reports of earlier cases". Especially when such information is reported in scientific publications:

However, this market cluster is unlikely to have denoted the beginning of the pandemic, as COVID-19 cases from early December lacked connections to the market (7). The earliest such case in the scientific literature is from an individual retrospectively diagnosed on 1 December 2019 (6). Notably, however, newspaper reports document retrospective COVID-19 diagnoses recorded by the Chinese government going back to 17 November 2019 in Hubei province (10). These reports detail daily retrospective COVID-19 diagnoses through the end of November, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 was actively circulating for at least a month before it was discovered. Science. 2021 Apr 23; 372(6540): 412–417.

The authors, making an analysis of existing literature (thus a secondary source for this), don't seem to make any statement or conclusion on whether these are actually confirmed cases or just reported cases, but the fact that they do mention the newspapers is a sign that this is worthy of mention. Additionally, the best way to avoid misinformation is not by entirely omitting this information, surprising the reader who would be puzzled by this omission, but by putting it in context so that readers are correctly informed about the entirety of the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your explanation responds decently to how to present information on the early cases, I can live with it. You seem to put high trust in the Non-MEDRS source cited (Pekar et al, 2021), and your argument that they "don't seem to make any statement or conclusion on whether these [pre-Dec 8th] cases actually confirmed cases or just reported cases" relies borderline on an "absence of evidence to show evidence of absence" and WP:SYNTH. But since no other editor has picked up why I insisted on the simplicity of using index as "confirmed+documented in MEDRS" I guess it is not a big deal. I am surprised in part because in previous unrelated edits in which I removed the date in which a research was made diff1, good editors (Bakkster Man) quickly jumped to revert with this explanations: diff2 and diff3. The reason espoused there was the exact date was notable, and that not enough time had passed in order to make it irrelevant to replace the exact date with my edit of "early January". I find it logically sound that citing the exact date of the index case of the worst pandemic in a century (defined as the first documented case) is way more notable than the exact date in which a group in the United States demonstrated that ACE2 could act as the receptor for SARS‑CoV‑2. These inconsistencies bother me a bit, but they are not your fault I can only point them out and move forward. Forich (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: Pekar et al. aren't exactly MEDRS, but they're publishing in a good journal (Science), and they're certainly within the realm of respectable WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and they're cited by actual MEDRS for their conclusions, so I think they pass muster. That said, I agree with the rest of your comment about inconsistencies and dates: my opinion is that there's usually very little reason to get stuck up on precise dates, as these only ever stay relevant for well documented and precise events (for something such as a fast-paced military engagement, you might even want to be precise up to the hour: this is usually information which is available even for battles from centuries ago).

Of course, that's only an example, and it is somewhat on one extreme of the scale, but this gives an idea of the kind of writing we should be aiming for. Applying this to the case of COVID, I can see a case that, with the situation changing over timescales of weeks or months, (compare lockdowns in early 2020 vs. relaxation in the summer vs. second wave vs. ...), that would be the degree of precision we need when describing this and major developments. Given that we don't even know many things precisely, I reckon being much more precise than this wouldn't be helpful, either. So I'm in favour of getting rid of most exact dates and simplifying them except for important events (like the WHO declaring it a pandemic, or the like), or when narrative flow would be inconvenienced or confusing if the timing of events is not accurately described. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

California Recall Election

You seem to be choosing favoritism in your recent edit. You're removing negative information on Newsom. The information is relevant to what is happening in my state of California. Lostfan333 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lostfan333: I honestly don't care much if at all about US politics and the perpetual shenanigans they generate. What I do care about is avoiding recentism and undue focus on events in the news, as this is an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed that various reverts are tagged with "rollback" so wondered if the actual rollback feature was used. If so, WP:ROLLBACKUSE lists when it can be used (it would be unnecessary additional drama if someone reported this so you lose the right, and it may still be helpful when patrolling)... Also, to revert multiple revisions manually without rollback, one only has to select the old revision from the history via the timestamp link, then edit and save. —PaleoNeonate – 21:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Other people have already made the comment (usually, they claim I've been abusing the tool, so it's nice to see a change in the reason), and I hate quoting verbatim, but it's rather clear: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." Again, thanks for your concerns, but there's no issue here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't usually see this, so was confused by these tags too... —PaleoNeonate – 00:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough

Why are you closing a dispute or discussion[2] about an article that you are involved on its talk page?[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Dealing with unambiguous disruption by a (likely not - see similarities with Special:Contributions/Bearsfan101, but nvm) new editor frivolously asking for deletion of a page they don't like, with no attempt by them to engage on the talk page (I've never interacted with them before, their posts on the FTN were posted before any of their subsequent edits on the talk page, and the previous sections on the talk page do not contain any dispute about the factual accuracy [or lack thereof] of the article subject's comment) - is not being involved, it's a correct application of DFTT. Given that there was already unanimous objection to them, anyway, I don't see the purpose of keeping those threads open, except maybe inviting more of the same COVID-treatments disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned that it was McCullough himself making the request to BLPN under WP:AUTOPROB and that the door was being slammed on him. After reviewing the article, I have some BLP concerns about the heavy reliance of primary sources without an accompanying secondary reliable source on several of the assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: The edit was made to WP:FTN. Nowhere in their edits did they claim to be McCullough (the previous account even denied it), nor did they even suggest a WP:PROD (that would be quickly contested, so would have led to an AfD) - they just outright suggested deleting the article, because they disagree with it. As for the issues with the article, you're free to fix it. I think some of the content based on the primary sources was included by an IP, to whom I've been suggesting on the article talk page that such content is unnecessary recentism. You're free to go give them the same message. Deletion isn't cleanup, in any case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reiterated that point to the IP on the talk page while removing the debated paragraph. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note for self

MOS:HEADCAPS was altered here to include the following fragment:

The same applies [n.b. already present] [...] to table headers and captions, the headers of infoboxes and navigation templates, and image captions and alt text.

I fail to see any discussion about this on the talk page as it stood at the time ([4]). Additionally, in the case that affects the RfC which sparked this, it is not supported by MOS:INFOBOX either, which fails to mention capitalisation except in how to name the template (completely unrelated). So this appears like a case of something being deemed a guideline without actually having been approved as a guideline. Like many other guidelines, it is not in sync with practice; and seems more like the legalistic fancy of some to have guidelines for every possible thing, which invariably are never followed because WP:5P5 is a fair bit more fundamental. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

An Integrity Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For many well-reasoned and level headed interactions you've had around here recently. But definitely for this rename close [5], which I thought was very fair and nicely articulated. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For an excellent job closing Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Requested move 26 July 2021. It was not the easiest discussion to be a closer for, but you were impartial and neutral in your explanation of the consensus.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an excellent close. Good job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Cuban protests

Thanks for your help and comments at 2021 Cuban protests and Talk:2021 Cuban protests. As for this, pretty much everything is attributed in the whole article and I think it is fine for the time being. Once we get actual scholarly sources, it can be rewritten and summarized according to them, without having to rely on news sources and attribution. Davide King (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD

Regarding your comments here, do you plan on nominating the male version of the template? If you are not, it will likely be closed as no consensus (allowing, of course, for a bundled renomination). (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, I went ahead and nominated the men's template, see here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• [Note to self, and fwiw, to Primefac too] - Issue long resolved, but WP:ALLORNOTHING is a rather poor argument in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"consensus against the proposal"

Quite. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• [note for reference]: diff RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chalmers Automobile/Temp

Hello, RandomCanadian,

ANY time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/MFD/TFD/etc.) you are obliged to inform the page creator of this tagging. If Twinkle doesn't notify them when you tag a page, then you must do so yourself. In this case, it would be preferable for you to contact the page creator and ask them whether this page was no longer necessary. Do not skip over communication with content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry, didn't notice that it wasn't done this time. @Akrasia25: Since this is about a page which you seem to be involved with... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Closure

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#24_hour_wait_proposal

2 weeks is not equal to 30 days.

And this isn't :"requests for votes", it's "request for comment". And there was still ongoing discussion before and even after you decided to close it. As you closed it, I have no doubt you read everything and thus are aware that several people said they were still giving this idea some thought, and some were still asking each other questions. We are learning about what the community members think. Which, I presume, is more important that worrying about an up/down "vote".

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable."

I respectfully request that you undo your close to allow for the discussion to continue. - jc37 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37: Not done - You don't need me to undo my close to add a ===Post-close discussion=== afterwards. It's clear the proposal wouldn't have passed/won't pass anyway (there are also plenty of far less equivocal comments on the matter), so I don't see what undoing my close would achieve besides that. As for "closure not required", the RfC was advertised on the WP:CENT template and it was quite well attended, so IMHO closure was an appropriate thing to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply - already existing threaded ongoing discussion.

per WP:SNOW - "Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of fairness."

I'm not sure what the hurry to close this is. - jc37 23:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is no minimum or maximum duration for RfCs, so this is not an "early closure" and duration is not a reason to overturn it. (t · c) buidhe 23:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, so first, this isn't a request to "overturn" a close. It's a request to allow the threaded discussion to continue, per Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs.

  "... if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action." - As noted, the discussion had not "run its course", and there are comments right before and right after the closure, and several unanswered questions.

  As I mentioned above, I'm not certain what the hurry is. - jc37 23:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  The threaded discussion can continue in a new subsection, as I was saying. You certainly know how to use {{ping}} to give a heads up to the people you wish to discuss with. There's no hurry, but given it took you nearly a week before posting here, surely, it isn't such a vital thing, and there's no reason to waste time either with a foregone conclusion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion continued during that week, which actually shows this isn't merely a case of a proposer just wanting to re-open on those grounds.

  But whatever. I hope, that since you seem eager to close things, that you take a moment and continue to help out at WP:CR. There are quite a few things there that actually are beyond the time period of a unilateral snow close. Good luck, and happy editing. - jc37 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)