Dronebogus (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:: I was frustrated over this back in 2016 ([[Pierre Boulez]]), but I think - see answers to my questions - that finally there may be a better solution than a new battle every article - which is what arbitration called for in 2013. I asked 12 candidates, and 11 had no better idea (the 12th never responded), but that can't be a good way to peace. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
:: I was frustrated over this back in 2016 ([[Pierre Boulez]]), but I think - see answers to my questions - that finally there may be a better solution than a new battle every article - which is what arbitration called for in 2013. I asked 12 candidates, and 11 had no better idea (the 12th never responded), but that can't be a good way to peace. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
::I think biographies should have infoboxes, and think this should be standardized, because it’s exceedingly tedious having to argue against the same 4 users on the same 4 talk pages to get this done. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
::I think biographies should have infoboxes, and think this should be standardized, because it’s exceedingly tedious having to argue against the same 4 users on the same 4 talk pages to get this done. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::Maybe it should be brought up at [[WP:BIO]]? The issue is cluttering up RfC because those opposed will not [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. I'd expect this kind of opposition in articles involving religion or politics. I never thought I'd encounter such resistance to an infobox. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov#top|talk]]) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Precious == |
== Precious == |
||
{{user precious|header=braves|thanks=for quality articles such as [[Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy]] and [[CoolToday Park]], for taking care of articles including [[Ron DeSantis]], for requesting sources, for determination and patience: "making information easier to consume is the only priority" -}} |
{{user precious|header=braves|thanks=for quality articles such as [[Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy]] and [[CoolToday Park]], for taking care of articles including [[Ron DeSantis]], for requesting sources, for determination and patience: "making information easier to consume is the only priority" -}} |
Revision as of 20:50, 4 December 2022
Courtesy note: Closure of discussion on Talk:Laurence Olivier
Hello. This is a courtesy note regarding your request for closure that you posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests. I have closed the discussion here. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review and close. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- thank you for constructive comments there, - I referred to the RfC in my arbcand questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I found the discussion through the RfC notice and there's a similar one going on at Talk:Maddie_Ziegler#RFC_on_Infoboxes_(continuation_from_discussion_above). The frustrating part is that many of the same people who were fighting the infobox on the Laurence Olivier article are doing the same thing article by article. I brought up the subject of having a universal rule for WP:BLP, but I"m not sure there's support or interest in the idea. That makes sense to me since this simple navigation tool shouldn't be an issue.
- So this presents a problem. That vocal minority is just going to stonewall infoboxes unless other editors go through a painstaking RfC process every time. I think I'm tapping out because it's not worth the effort and then when the infobox is ultimately approved the vocal minority will fight every single change to the infobox.
- It's probably just easier to let it go and this will eventually work itself out as infoboxes become a standard part of most articles. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- I was frustrated over this back in 2016 (Pierre Boulez), but I think - see answers to my questions - that finally there may be a better solution than a new battle every article - which is what arbitration called for in 2013. I asked 12 candidates, and 11 had no better idea (the 12th never responded), but that can't be a good way to peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think biographies should have infoboxes, and think this should be standardized, because it’s exceedingly tedious having to argue against the same 4 users on the same 4 talk pages to get this done. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be brought up at WP:BIO? The issue is cluttering up RfC because those opposed will not WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'd expect this kind of opposition in articles involving religion or politics. I never thought I'd encounter such resistance to an infobox. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Precious
braves
Thank you for quality articles such as Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy and CoolToday Park, for taking care of articles including Ron DeSantis, for requesting sources, for determination and patience: "making information easier to consume is the only priority" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2779 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Republican efforts article TP comments
[1] This comment seems like the same kind of attack you made here [2]] Why are you accusing me of "ignoring arguments" when I've politely responded, and at least attempted to address each point and claim, within a reasonable amount of time? Maybe I didn't address them to your satisfaction, but instead of just stating as much, you seemingly cast aspersions of WP:OWN upon me. Meanwhile, it's been a week with no response from you to my last comment, in which I genuinely tried to make it easier and encourage you to focus and clarify your claim in such a manner so that I could better understand your position and move us closer to a consensus. I ask that you strike the portions of your commentary that could be perceived as WP:ASPERSIONS, regardless of whether or not you decide to wait 10 years to return to the debate there...DN (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)