User talk:TParis: Difference between revisions
→The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023: new section Tag: |
Tag: |
||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1166489155 --> |
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1166489155 --> |
||
== Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open == |
|||
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator|here]]. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2023|here]]''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators|current coord team]]. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Hog Farm@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1172043425 --> |
|||
Revision as of 02:05, 2 September 2023
| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours. |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
BEFORE or not?
The references to BEFORE being non-mandatory you linked to in the soon-to-end RfA date from 2015 and 2011--that's seven and ten years ago. I've been pleasantly surprised to see AfD culture changing to the point that yes, BEFORE is a behavioral expectation. Wikipedia has this funny consensus thing, where if a bunch of people will object to an RFA pretty solely on the basis of the candidate's understanding of deletion policy... Well, it's splitting hairs to say it's not policy. Much like saying N is a guideline, not a policy--it may be technically correct, but it doesn't adequately reflect how Wikipedia works in practice. In the intervening years, the tools for searching have gotten much better, so the burden of BEFORE is substantially lower, which I suspect is part of what's driving the community expectation. Perchance, have you found any more current repudiations of BEFORE? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not splitting hairs. We have a process for making it policy and it hasn't happened yet. The two discussions I linked are the most recent. If you feel the winds have changed, then take it to WP:VPP and propose it be made policy. If you cannot, it is not. I don't have to prove there isn't, the onus is on you to prove that there is support through a formal and widely disseminated WP:RFC. I know you know that, I recognize your name, you've been around for awhile.--v/r - TP 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Jclemens, the point that everyone is missing, especially when doing a character assassination of the one person NPP needs, is that whether you like 'BEFORE' or not, the issues in SoWhy's list (which did the most damage) are all edge cases. They do not represent a pattern at all. Within his permitted discretion, MB actually handled correctly in everyone one of them, and he is not an 'enthusiastic deletionist'. The 'crats will not bother to check , and there is no appeal to them to do otherwise, but it took other editors at least one hour to scrape the Internet for a couple of flimsy sources at those AfD. If that's what you expect New Page Reviewers to do every time they reject a new article, you can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Be careful what you ask for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Kudpung, Character assassination? Tone down the rhetoric a notch or six, please. I'm having a discussion about policy with TParis. You're welcome to interject, but you may not like what I have to say: 1) I suspect the overall bellicosity, to which you contributed in part, was the single biggest factor in the late oppose trend in the RfA--just go read the later opposes, obviously including mine, that highlighted it as a turn-off. 2) The candidate's answer to #12 was tone deaf. The correct response was actually in there--NPP deals only with new articles that no one has invested much time and effort into--but it was buried by a "BEFORE isn't policy" intro. I don't disagree that BEFORE is far more important when dealing with established articles, and THAT would have been a better way to approach it. Thus, my crystal ball says that if the nominators had spent more time plotting how to help your candidate answer questions and less time aggressively defending interpretations of policy, the RfA would have ended entirely positively. Remember, RfA is the one chance the community gets to assess how willing to listen to feedback and adjust course accordingly a candidate is. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Jclemens, I'll just say it again in case you missed it: If the community expects New Page Reviewers to do a 'BEFORE' every time they reject a new article, they can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- So now might be a good time to get consensus to a notation in BEFORE that longer-lasting articles get more consideration than brand-new ones. I'd happily support that. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Jclemens, I'll just say it again in case you missed it: If the community expects New Page Reviewers to do a 'BEFORE' every time they reject a new article, they can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Kudpung, Character assassination? Tone down the rhetoric a notch or six, please. I'm having a discussion about policy with TParis. You're welcome to interject, but you may not like what I have to say: 1) I suspect the overall bellicosity, to which you contributed in part, was the single biggest factor in the late oppose trend in the RfA--just go read the later opposes, obviously including mine, that highlighted it as a turn-off. 2) The candidate's answer to #12 was tone deaf. The correct response was actually in there--NPP deals only with new articles that no one has invested much time and effort into--but it was buried by a "BEFORE isn't policy" intro. I don't disagree that BEFORE is far more important when dealing with established articles, and THAT would have been a better way to approach it. Thus, my crystal ball says that if the nominators had spent more time plotting how to help your candidate answer questions and less time aggressively defending interpretations of policy, the RfA would have ended entirely positively. Remember, RfA is the one chance the community gets to assess how willing to listen to feedback and adjust course accordingly a candidate is. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Jclemens, the point that everyone is missing, especially when doing a character assassination of the one person NPP needs, is that whether you like 'BEFORE' or not, the issues in SoWhy's list (which did the most damage) are all edge cases. They do not represent a pattern at all. Within his permitted discretion, MB actually handled correctly in everyone one of them, and he is not an 'enthusiastic deletionist'. The 'crats will not bother to check , and there is no appeal to them to do otherwise, but it took other editors at least one hour to scrape the Internet for a couple of flimsy sources at those AfD. If that's what you expect New Page Reviewers to do every time they reject a new article, you can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Be careful what you ask for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)