AzureCitizen (talk | contribs) Added note |
ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs) →That RFC: new section |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
:::::The problem is with using Google search result. Saying quotes search X returns more results than quotes search Y doesn't tell us anything about which is a better Wikipedia title. See [[WP:GHITS]], [[WP:GNUM]], and [[WP:GOOG]]. -[[User:Nathan Johnson|Nathan Johnson]] ([[User talk:Nathan Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
:::::The problem is with using Google search result. Saying quotes search X returns more results than quotes search Y doesn't tell us anything about which is a better Wikipedia title. See [[WP:GHITS]], [[WP:GNUM]], and [[WP:GOOG]]. -[[User:Nathan Johnson|Nathan Johnson]] ([[User talk:Nathan Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::I was generally aware of those essays (thanks); if I may point out, WP:GHITS says "''Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.''" This means we shouldn't be using Google hits to establish notability in a deletion discussion - a point on which I'm sure you'd agree. If you read the first part of that sentence again, however, it says that Google is useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, i.e., WP:COMMONAME when trying to decide between article title X and article title Y. WP:COMMONAME itself even refers to using Google, and suggests searching Google Books and Google News (which I did). As WP:GHITS is an essay and WP:COMMONAME is a policy, wouldn't this mean Google News searches are relevant as evidence? [[User:AzureCitizen|AzureCitizen]] ([[User talk:AzureCitizen|talk]]) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
::::::I was generally aware of those essays (thanks); if I may point out, WP:GHITS says "''Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.''" This means we shouldn't be using Google hits to establish notability in a deletion discussion - a point on which I'm sure you'd agree. If you read the first part of that sentence again, however, it says that Google is useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, i.e., WP:COMMONAME when trying to decide between article title X and article title Y. WP:COMMONAME itself even refers to using Google, and suggests searching Google Books and Google News (which I did). As WP:GHITS is an essay and WP:COMMONAME is a policy, wouldn't this mean Google News searches are relevant as evidence? [[User:AzureCitizen|AzureCitizen]] ([[User talk:AzureCitizen|talk]]) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
== That RFC == |
|||
I think there is some misunderstanding here. The archived [[Wikipedia:PUMP/POLICY#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions]] were to remove the offending piece, not to insert it. I could not remove it because the text was defended by editors from WP:ANIME. A record of this is at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Article_content|#article content]], but Lord Sjones23 noted in a new[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#RFC_on_the_above_proposals|RFC section]] about it going to the pump. It is [[WP:CREEP]]y and that's why when the argument was made I opted for removal of the section instead of alteration. Consensus in this case is to remove, not add the offending bit. Ironically, this issue was the original reason for [[Dragonball Z]] to be deleted back in 2008, as seen by [[WT:Dragonball]]: "The Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT articles were merged due to a consensus. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation violates WP:MOS-AM." Here's the link to that discussion:[[Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge]] The two RFC's that were opened are connected to this issue; both decided by policy prior to a formal close, but it needs a formal close to remove that offending section of MOS-AM and recreate the Dragonball Z article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:04, 25 May 2013
Berhault and thanks
Thanks, Nathan. I'm learning, I love the place and all the good work I see you guys are providing. As soon as I have enough time in evenings or afternoons. I'm trying to help and participate as much as I can, Still don't know how to use most of the features, how to send a message like this very one (should I do like that, editing your page?), etc. Glad to help. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akseli9 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Akseli9, you're doing great work. You got somewhat unfortunate at Articles for creation in that a relatively inexperienced editor reviewed the article. Sending messages is just like editing an article, which it looks like you know how to do, except that it's on a talk page. To sign a talk page, just type four tildes ~~~~. That will automatically expand (for me) into → Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conflict Resolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Template help
Could someone familiar with templates have a look-see at User:Nathan Johnson/sandbox and fix it. Hopefully obvious what I was trying to do, but if not, I want the {{Cite book}} template to be the expanded text when the template is substituted. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, please don't. Have a look at lua templating at WP:LUA which can do this far more effectively with a simple string.format Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unhelpful. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
{{subst:User:Nathan Johnson/sandbox|7|pages=41-65}}
yields:
Steven M. Cox and Kris Fulsaas, ed. (2003). Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills (7th ed.). Seattle: The Mountaineers Books. pp. 41–65. ISBN 9780898868289. {{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |origdate=
ignored (|orig-date=
suggested) (help)
- Let me suggest that after you tweak this and get it where you want it, find a good Lua expert to help you convert it. We do seem to be heading in that direction. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I don't think it'll get used more than a handful of times, only when I come across an incomplete reference to the book (usually an old edition that I don't have). That's happened a few times already, and I just ignored them, but in the future I want to update them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, cool, and You're welcome!. FYI, the details on safesubbing are here. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any idea why this doesn't work inside <ref> tags? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Evidently due to the occasional need to improve the code, templates have to be transcluded between ref tags.[1] So leave the "subst:" out at the beginning and don't substitute the template. One possible drawback with this is that other editors, if they come across a deadlink that lies within this template, will find it more involved than usual to fix it. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any idea why this doesn't work inside <ref> tags? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, cool, and You're welcome!. FYI, the details on safesubbing are here. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I don't think it'll get used more than a handful of times, only when I come across an incomplete reference to the book (usually an old edition that I don't have). That's happened a few times already, and I just ignored them, but in the future I want to update them. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Steven M. Cox and Kris Fulsaas, ed. (2003). Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills (7th ed.). Seattle: The Mountaineers Books. pp. 41–65. ISBN 9780898868289.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|origdate=
ignored (|orig-date=
suggested) (help)
- PS. It's not explained, but it is noted at Help:Footnotes#Limitations
I just wanted to say, I don't fully agree with this refactoring of your talk page comment, but I do agree that it is totally inappropriate to refer to WP:LAME in closing an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is lame. It's lamer when you consider how many bytes have been wasted arguing on the talk page. It's lamer still that some people don't actually think it's lame. I got nothing else; I don't care that my comment was refactored, though I don't think it was inappropriate to point out a lame edit war. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- But the RfC had nothing to do with the edit war... StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Right... absolutely nothing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- But the RfC had nothing to do with the edit war... StAnselm (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Placing a "Travel guide" link to Wikivoyage next to the geographic coordinates in articles on cities and countries
Had I not been involved in this, I would have suggested this be closed as no consensus. I don't see that any developed there. I see opposes and alternate ideas and conditionals with little change in positions. Rmhermen (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the note. I'll re-read the discussion. (permalink for me). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to sleep on this. I don't think there's any hurry, so I'm not going to re-open it, but I don't think it should be implemented yet. Though I wouldn't object if you, or someone else, did so. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with Rmhermen here. There was no consensus no add a top link merely for Wikivoyage as you stated in your rationale. There were many conditional supports and opposes, mainly depending on whether or not this proposal was extended to include the other sister projects. I did not tally the votes, so there may or may not be a consensus to do so under these modified conditions. This should at least have been mentioned as one of your considerations in closing this discussion. —Ruud 12:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Re-done. Thank you both for your comments. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I still think your closing rationale lacks the necessary depth to do the discussion adequate justice and had hoped you would have consulted with another uninvolved editor, but being the proponent of this proposal I should probably let the matter rest for now. —Ruud 17:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Re-done. Thank you both for your comments. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree with Rmhermen here. There was no consensus no add a top link merely for Wikivoyage as you stated in your rationale. There were many conditional supports and opposes, mainly depending on whether or not this proposal was extended to include the other sister projects. I did not tally the votes, so there may or may not be a consensus to do so under these modified conditions. This should at least have been mentioned as one of your considerations in closing this discussion. —Ruud 12:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Your summary at an RfC posting
Hi Nathan,
I just happened upon your December 3rd edit summary on the talk page here. While it is ancient news, I would appreciate if one item could be corrected? You wrote: "The result of this RfC is that two user receiving topic bans from this article." That is factually incorrect. Only one user received a topic ban in that RfC. The other user voluntarily self-banned to contribute toward resolving the issue. Big difference. And I wouldn't want anyone reading that summary to be misled by it. So if you could please fix it, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C89A:7FD2:E561:B6DC (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. However, I don't think I'm going to change the close at this stage. For one, it's pretty stale at this point, and, more importantly, the functional difference between self-banning in the face of a ban and a ban is nil. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Anna Stöhr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Austrian, Arco and World Youth Championship
- Rock Master (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Arco and Vladimir Zakharov
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia RfC
Hi. You closed WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy as no consensus two weeks ago. Would you consider amending your close to "consensus against promotion" or adding an explanatory closing statement? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Sorry for the delay, forgot about this. Oops. :-) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:George Maharis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Maharis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Modified close
Hi, I took the discussion "Arbcom positions" out from the bottom of your close of User:Jmh649/Will Beback on the grounds that it is a different discussion. Cardamon (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Close of Merge proposal for Francesca Hogi
Hi. The author of the article is unhappy with the closure. I've made a note of this here. I'm not sure of the review process in these cases. The link to [1] doesn't really make it very clear what the appeal process is. -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I thought consensus was clear, but apparently not. I have no problems with someone else taking a look at it. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think consensus was quite clear, but MouthlessBobcat (talk · contribs) has reverted all the changes after the close of the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Litecoin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Litecoin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Thanks...
Hi, I will try to contribute. So far I only tried to arrange Adam Ondra page, because I always found sport climbing on en.wiki in a very stub condition and I don't speak english very well. I never understood for example why american climbers like Robyn Erbesfield, Sean McColl, Daniel Woods, Sasha DiGiulian, Alex Puccio, Paul Robinson (climber), which are so famous in Europe, didn't have a page on en.wiki (or why Patrick Edlinger is called "free solo climber" :P). Probably because sport climbing and its competition are related to Europe and so there is less interest in sport climbing in USA and more interest about big walls or trad climbing. There are many things in sport climbing to correct, I will try to contribute to fix them. Cya! --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Hi Nathan Johnson, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! INeverCry 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angela Eiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Responded
Hi I responded to you at Talk:Arlene's Grocery Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Your close
Hello Nathan. I imagine you've seen this discussion, but if not I would urge you to revert your recent move close for the reasons articulated here. I must say, I'm a bit surprised that as a non-sysop you would close a move discussion such as that, before the 7 days have run. Where it is clear that -- even if you disagree with them -- 80% of the !voters read the guidelines differently than you do. My experience is non-sysops tend to not close such discussions, and certainly not close them early (usually something reserved for a SNOW), when 80% of !voters have a view that differs from the non-sysop. We can of course run this through review and whatever other noticeboards are necessary, but I wonder if instead of wasting community time you might not give consideration to the points that your early close of the 7-day process might not perhaps be better handled by you reverting, and at minimum allowing the seven-day process to proceed unless the discussion is closed via SNOW ... which would be unlikely if only 20% of !voters see matters as you do. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Admins have no special powers in closing discussions though. I was just responding to the request at WP:AN/RFC. I didn't realize that it hadn't run the allotted time. Sorry. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Much appreciated. As to non-admins closing -- yes, that is allowed. But, and I base this on various discussions I've seen at AN/I and AfDs, when it comes to a potentially contentious close (which, for the reasons I mention above, one could perhaps view this one as), from what I have seen in community discussion the suggestion appears to be that it is better left to an admin. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. It was about RfCs, but RMs allow non-admin closes too, even contentious ones. AfDs are different and I don't venture there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. My comment was based on various discussions I've seen, but the comment here by Arb Committee member New York Brad captures the flavor of most of the discussions I've seen. No doubt, as even in that discussion, there are discussions and/or individual points of view that differ. I don't see any material difference in what the discussion is about, as long as it calls for a closure (e.g., RFC, AfD, move, RfA). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That comment was about a RfA closed as SNOW by an admin (non-crat) in March 2008. I don't understand how that is remotely related. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's the concept, though as you point out the circumstances differ as it was admin vs. crat, rather than non-admin vs. admin. I see the issue as being the same one, as I said, whether the discussion is about a move or a deletion or any similar community discussion that a non-admin may close.
- That comment was about a RfA closed as SNOW by an admin (non-crat) in March 2008. I don't understand how that is remotely related. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. My comment was based on various discussions I've seen, but the comment here by Arb Committee member New York Brad captures the flavor of most of the discussions I've seen. No doubt, as even in that discussion, there are discussions and/or individual points of view that differ. I don't see any material difference in what the discussion is about, as long as it calls for a closure (e.g., RFC, AfD, move, RfA). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. It was about RfCs, but RMs allow non-admin closes too, even contentious ones. AfDs are different and I don't venture there. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Much appreciated. As to non-admins closing -- yes, that is allowed. But, and I base this on various discussions I've seen at AN/I and AfDs, when it comes to a potentially contentious close (which, for the reasons I mention above, one could perhaps view this one as), from what I have seen in community discussion the suggestion appears to be that it is better left to an admin. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The wp guideline Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is another example that contains language on the general issue of non-admin closures. It states:
Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)"In general, administrators are responsible for closing deletion discussions. However, at times the many discussion venues become backlogged.... Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator."
- That's an essay, not a guideline. It's specifically about deletion discussions. And your "quote" isn't even on that page. It's on Wikipedia:Deletion process, which is, again, about deletion discussions, and not applicable here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes -- I was citing to the guideline (as indicated by my quotes), but incorrectly gave you the link to an essay (which in turn links to the guideline). So my comment and quote are as to the guideline. My link was incorrect, and for that I apologize. Again -- in my view the rationale that we find at Non-administrators closing discussions, discussing the closing by non-admins of community discussions (in that circumstance, deletion rather than move discussions), is precisely the same as the rationale at move discussions. The fact that it is a move -- rather than a deletion -- does not at all impact the fact that it is better to have non-admins not close clearly contentious decisions, especially before the 7-day deadline, and especially when 80% or so of 15 editors have !voted one way and the closer is closing the discussion the opposite way. All the good reasons for a non-admin not closing those discussions apply, in my view, whatever the nature is of the community discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I commend Nathan on his quick and friendly self-revert of the close. And I fully agree with Epeefleche that because of the very contentious nature of this particular title issue - for an extremely high-profile article, no less - it would be preferred that an admin does the close. However, I believe that many participating editors would not be opposed instead to a very good non-admin with strong closing experience. In any case, thank you to Nathan for undoing the close and, therefore, preventing a wikiriot. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- FYI... I finally found the policy about closing requested moves that I was looking for. ;) Rule #1, which was violated by a few editors, says, "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey." In particular, read the "Who can close requested moves" section, which clearly explains the conflict of interest issues I alluded to previously. With regard to Nathan's involvement, the policy also talks about non-admin closures. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes -- I was citing to the guideline (as indicated by my quotes), but incorrectly gave you the link to an essay (which in turn links to the guideline). So my comment and quote are as to the guideline. My link was incorrect, and for that I apologize. Again -- in my view the rationale that we find at Non-administrators closing discussions, discussing the closing by non-admins of community discussions (in that circumstance, deletion rather than move discussions), is precisely the same as the rationale at move discussions. The fact that it is a move -- rather than a deletion -- does not at all impact the fact that it is better to have non-admins not close clearly contentious decisions, especially before the 7-day deadline, and especially when 80% or so of 15 editors have !voted one way and the closer is closing the discussion the opposite way. All the good reasons for a non-admin not closing those discussions apply, in my view, whatever the nature is of the community discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not a guideline. It's specifically about deletion discussions. And your "quote" isn't even on that page. It's on Wikipedia:Deletion process, which is, again, about deletion discussions, and not applicable here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The wp guideline Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is another example that contains language on the general issue of non-admin closures. It states:
Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Daniel Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Richardson
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
About your removals
I am just writing to an administator. --Rotpunkt (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- WTF? Go ahead. WP:ANI is where you should go. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, Rotpunkt doesn't have to go to ANI, so there's no need for WTF. I assume that Rotpunkt came to me because they realized I used to hang out in Nideggen. See my comments on Talk:Daniel Woods. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- The WTF was because when someone disagreed with him, instead of discussing, he immediately went to a (presumably) friendly admin. ANI would have been preferred for a response from neutral admins. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Settle down. Asking a friendly admin for advice is perfectly alright. What did you think, a block was going to be handed out immediately? Admins do a lot more than that, I hope. I don't think I've ever interacted with this person--ANI is for intervention, and I don't see the need for that yet. Having said that, though, I think you need to take it easy with the reverts. Removing those "Biography" headings strikes me as retaliatory, and removing them makes the articles worse, not better. But see that talk page: if you all cooperate you can improve the project. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I took the last week off from climbing articles because this user was pissing me off. I come back and within an edit he is already calling my edits vandalism and "writing to an administator". The heading removals was not retaliatory. Had I not been taking a short wikibreak this past week, I would have removed them as I saw them. It just happens I saw them all at once. And I disagree; I think removing them makes the articles better, hence why I did it. But I am open to communication, which in my experience, this user is not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Read WP:LEAD. Without "Biography" or some such section, there is no lead. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Adding a "Biography" heading between the first and second paragraph does not make a WP:LEAD. All it does is add an unnecessary heading. If he actually wants to write a lead, I'm fine with that. But that's not what he's doing. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Read WP:LEAD. Without "Biography" or some such section, there is no lead. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I took the last week off from climbing articles because this user was pissing me off. I come back and within an edit he is already calling my edits vandalism and "writing to an administator". The heading removals was not retaliatory. Had I not been taking a short wikibreak this past week, I would have removed them as I saw them. It just happens I saw them all at once. And I disagree; I think removing them makes the articles better, hence why I did it. But I am open to communication, which in my experience, this user is not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Settle down. Asking a friendly admin for advice is perfectly alright. What did you think, a block was going to be handed out immediately? Admins do a lot more than that, I hope. I don't think I've ever interacted with this person--ANI is for intervention, and I don't see the need for that yet. Having said that, though, I think you need to take it easy with the reverts. Removing those "Biography" headings strikes me as retaliatory, and removing them makes the articles worse, not better. But see that talk page: if you all cooperate you can improve the project. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- The WTF was because when someone disagreed with him, instead of discussing, he immediately went to a (presumably) friendly admin. ANI would have been preferred for a response from neutral admins. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: User:Xenophrenic
On February 24 you recommended a topic ban for Xenophrenic (and four other editors) at WP:ANI. Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [2] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
yep
Sorry about using a short name for Xenophrenic - I guess I should be glad the bureaucrat did not take umbrage <g>. I am just too used to using short versions of names I suppose. Collect (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Nathan Johnson, I would like to talk with you. I don't like the walls, I would like to have a friendly relationship with you. I want to talk about what we share. I think we share a great passion for sports: I don't know which is your main sport, you surely have one, I spent great part of my life walking and climbing on mountains (I live near many crags and many four-thousanders). And both of us are very meticulous person (probably we both have a scientific underground) and this is good. However for this reason may be sometimes we appear to stand firm on our position. I have discussed with you about the navbars and the notable lists, but as you have seen I don't start editing before finding a consensus. So... when we discuss if you don't like my ideas, let's go on anyway, talking about the problems and not about the persons (my competence, my english, and so on). You don't like my criteria, ok, we will try something different, however we both (not only me) must be ready to change idea on something, otherwise there is no collaboration. I can learn from you but also you can learn from me, perhaps you have liked my it.wiki articles a bit. I really hope we can start a friendly and constructive relationship. Have a nice time. Cya. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Rotpunkt. Thank you for the kind note. I agree that I have been less than cordial, and I apologize for it. I truly believe that we both are doing what we think is best for the encyclopedia. Your behavior has been much better than mine. I think it would be best if I try another short wikibreak from climbing articles, or stick to my current project of improving the rock climbing article. You are right that I have a scientific background and tend to stand firm. That doesn't suit editing on Wikipedia that well which requires such a high degree of compromise. In future, I will make an extra effort in all discussions to be more cordial, but especially with you since I think we do have so much in common. (Btw, my main sports are road cycling and sport climbing, and snowboarding in the winter to keep outside. I have not been climbing nearly as long as you.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am so happy now. Wikipedia is great, however the user interaction (asynchronous and anonymous) is not easy. I think if we talked face to face we would have fun. If in the future I can help you for something feel free to write in my talk page. All the best. Cya. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Killing of Travis Alexander
Hi Nathan. I saw that you moved for a close on the article renaming thread, and concluded the overall preference was for Murder of Travis Alexander over Trial of Jodi Arias with a vote of 10 to 8 respectively (as of !votes cast today and yesterday, a ratio of 5:4). You did a pretty good job summing things up, but your close did not address the point that no policy based arguments were made for Murder of Travis Alexander over Trial of Jodi Arias, the latter of which WP:COMMONAME and notability were in support for. Since Wikipedia does not use "votes" to decide consensus, would you mind adding that to your summation and addressing that issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I will reexamine the discussion. I spent quite a bit of time reading it and did not see much evidence given to either WP:COMMONNAME or WP:N. Were those discussed in a different section on the page in more detail? I did skim the rest of the talk page, but did not read it in depth. Also, I did not count the votes, so I am surprised that the ratio was 5:4. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for re-looking it. Subsections for restating policy-based arguments were added on 12 May 2013, please see here. I think many editors have a preference for the article title being "Murder of Travis Alexander" over "Killing of Travis Alexander" (it makes total sense), but when further comparing "Murder of Travis Alexander" to "Trial of Jodi Arias", the latter is actually supported by policy (while the most important point developed in support of "Murder of..." is that some editors feel it is more inclusive of all items related to the sordid mess this murder was. Not a policy based reason, but still worth considering.) The !vote tallies at 10 to 8 as of today, with another editor voting for Murder of... yesterday and another editor voting for Trial of... today. If you'd like a by-name tally, here's a roadmap:
- For "Murder of Travis Alexander": Joseph A. Spadaro, Kelly, Halo Jerk1, Bishonen, Lord Sjones23, ukexpat, Risssa, 68.231.15.56, ArishiaNishi, Ezikleyici.
- For "Trial of Jodi Arias": AzureCitizen(myself), Darkness Shines, 70.36.137.19, 138.162.128.53, BabbaQ, Billturner1983, Transcendence, Geebee2.
- As they say, outcomes should not be determined by an all out "vote", although I know that happens all too frequently. I'm an "involved" party obviously; I just want to make sure the policy-based rationales are considered when it's a close 5:4 ratio split, and no policy based arguments have been offered in support of a "Murder of" consensus choice over "Trial of". Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I re-read the discussion and added to the close. I can't say you'll be happy though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, that's okay. :) I am puzzled however by the statement "It was asserted without evidence that Trial of Jodi Arias was more common, but given the discussion below, it seems that there is no preference in reliable English-language sources as it relates to Wikipedia titles as required by WP:COMMONNAME." Did you see this material provided in the "Trial of Jodi Arias" arguments on Google News having 11,700 hits for "Trial of Jodi Arias", while "Murder of Travis Aelxander" had 188? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is with using Google search result. Saying quotes search X returns more results than quotes search Y doesn't tell us anything about which is a better Wikipedia title. See WP:GHITS, WP:GNUM, and WP:GOOG. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was generally aware of those essays (thanks); if I may point out, WP:GHITS says "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This means we shouldn't be using Google hits to establish notability in a deletion discussion - a point on which I'm sure you'd agree. If you read the first part of that sentence again, however, it says that Google is useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, i.e., WP:COMMONAME when trying to decide between article title X and article title Y. WP:COMMONAME itself even refers to using Google, and suggests searching Google Books and Google News (which I did). As WP:GHITS is an essay and WP:COMMONAME is a policy, wouldn't this mean Google News searches are relevant as evidence? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is with using Google search result. Saying quotes search X returns more results than quotes search Y doesn't tell us anything about which is a better Wikipedia title. See WP:GHITS, WP:GNUM, and WP:GOOG. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, that's okay. :) I am puzzled however by the statement "It was asserted without evidence that Trial of Jodi Arias was more common, but given the discussion below, it seems that there is no preference in reliable English-language sources as it relates to Wikipedia titles as required by WP:COMMONNAME." Did you see this material provided in the "Trial of Jodi Arias" arguments on Google News having 11,700 hits for "Trial of Jodi Arias", while "Murder of Travis Aelxander" had 188? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. I re-read the discussion and added to the close. I can't say you'll be happy though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That RFC
I think there is some misunderstanding here. The archived Wikipedia:PUMP/POLICY#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions were to remove the offending piece, not to insert it. I could not remove it because the text was defended by editors from WP:ANIME. A record of this is at #article content, but Lord Sjones23 noted in a newRFC section about it going to the pump. It is WP:CREEPy and that's why when the argument was made I opted for removal of the section instead of alteration. Consensus in this case is to remove, not add the offending bit. Ironically, this issue was the original reason for Dragonball Z to be deleted back in 2008, as seen by WT:Dragonball: "The Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT articles were merged due to a consensus. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation violates WP:MOS-AM." Here's the link to that discussion:Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge The two RFC's that were opened are connected to this issue; both decided by policy prior to a formal close, but it needs a formal close to remove that offending section of MOS-AM and recreate the Dragonball Z article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)