User talk:JML1148: Difference between revisions
6,733 edits |
|||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
:{{ping|Mkstokes}} When I made the close at [[Nick McKenzie]], I did not know of the [[WP:AN]] thread that existed, nor your topic ban. Neither of those things factored into my close as a result. If I have caused hurt, I apologise, but I don't think it qualifies as gravedancing because I did not know of your topic ban, and you are still able to respond to my comments. I also don't believe I did either of the examples of gravedancing that you have mentioned. |
:{{ping|Mkstokes}} When I made the close at [[Nick McKenzie]], I did not know of the [[WP:AN]] thread that existed, nor your topic ban. Neither of those things factored into my close as a result. If I have caused hurt, I apologise, but I don't think it qualifies as gravedancing because I did not know of your topic ban, and you are still able to respond to my comments. I also don't believe I did either of the examples of gravedancing that you have mentioned. |
||
:I do have more of an issue with the final part of your comment, though. RfCs and other discussions [[WP:VOTE|aren't closed based off of a simple vote tally]]. Instead, we work based on [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Per [[WP:DETCON]], consensus {{tq|is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.}} This means that closes may be made even if the numerical majority is against, if the quality of arguments on the minority are much stronger than the majority, which was the case in this discussion. I explained this in my closure note. The reason I left the comment about it being a controversial close is because closes against the numerical majority can obviously look unfair, particularly if you are involved and have a strong viewpoint. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' <sup>([[User talk:JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">contribs</span>]])</sup> 06:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
:I do have more of an issue with the final part of your comment, though. RfCs and other discussions [[WP:VOTE|aren't closed based off of a simple vote tally]]. Instead, we work based on [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Per [[WP:DETCON]], consensus {{tq|is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.}} This means that closes may be made even if the numerical majority is against, if the quality of arguments on the minority are much stronger than the majority, which was the case in this discussion. I explained this in my closure note. The reason I left the comment about it being a controversial close is because closes against the numerical majority can obviously look unfair, particularly if you are involved and have a strong viewpoint. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' <sup>([[User talk:JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">talk</span>]] | [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|<span style="color:#58c8cc">contribs</span>]])</sup> 06:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item. There was no hurt caused as I am now fully aware of the way Wikipedia skews it's policies and guidelines to fit a leftist viewpoint. However, the apology is greatly appreciated. No one seems to take policies regarding [[WP:BLPPUBLIC|public figures]] seriously on [[Wikipedia:BLP|Biographies of living persons]]. As the dispute was thoroughly handled via the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement| dispute process]], there was no need to add your personal admonitions to the editors involved and to single me out for personal insult. As an experienced editor, you knew that any [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] would come back to me when you tagged me, so the intent is clear. As you didn't know I was under a [[Wikipedia:TBAN|topic ban]], I retract my warning and this can be either closed or deleted. Your prerogative. [[User:Mkstokes|Mkstokes]] ([[User talk:Mkstokes|talk]]) 08:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:43, 12 March 2024
This is JML1148's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
JML1148 uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken. |
Question from Sanescious (20:32, 5 March 2024)
Hello I would like to know on how can i add my details as an artist, producer, beat maker and rapper --Sanescious (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @]
- Ok i will wait for your go ahead 41.150.221.213 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sanescious: I'm not your supervisor. Start whenever you want. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok i will wait for your go ahead 41.150.221.213 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Question from Haspsyokes (11:03, 6 March 2024)
hello, do you know why is it that wikipedia marks words like "honoured" and "sulphur" as incorrect grammer(might be wrong term, I mean the red line underneath the word), and should I replace it with the other spelling of the word? (eg: honored, sulfur) --Haspsyokes (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Haspsyokes: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! 'Honoured' and 'sulphur' are the correct spellings for British or Australian English, whereas 'honored' and 'sulfur' are the correct spellings for American English. I'm assuming your browser or device is set to British English for some reason. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Question from Irma Fritz (20:00, 7 March 2024)
Hello James! Good to meet you! I'm a fiction writer. Aside from English, I read/write German. I'd like to get started on Wikipedia, perhaps by creating my own Wiki page. --Irma Fritz (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @]
This Month in GLAM: February 2024
|
Stadio Olimpico
Thanks, I wish for it to become a good article but I am aware that the article needs editing by a native speaker who well knows English. -- Blackcat 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Blackcat: No worries! Just so you know, I probably won't have much time to copyedit the article today, but I'll get to it tomorrow. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. Just a thing, in the lead you asked whether 90,000 were the highest attendance for a concert at all, or only for the Olimpico. Of course it's the Olimpico only (Paul McCartney made > 200,000 in Rio de Janeiro in 1990...). I guess I explained it later in the article. -- Blackcat 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Your close
Thanks your for your considered close. Per your comments re: AN/I I did take action towards the end of the RfC at AE that resulted in a topic ban from two subjects for the editor you named. I should have handled myself better during the whole episode and I got a warning for my behaviour also. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: Thank you for the heads up regarding the AN thread. I didn't realise that Mkstokes received a topic ban or that the thread existed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Engagement in WP:NPA
You currently appear to be engaged in
EXAMPLES OF GRAVEDANCING
Examples of gravedancing may include:
- Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees it because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together.
- Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought.
Despite claiming "There is consensus to remove the disputed content," it is clear none was achieved to remove said content. If it had been obtained, there would be no concern that "This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content." Mkstokes (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WP:ANthread that existed, nor your topic ban. Neither of those things factored into my close as a result. If I have caused hurt, I apologise, but I don't think it qualifies as gravedancing because I did not know of your topic ban, and you are still able to respond to my comments. I also don't believe I did either of the examples of gravedancing that you have mentioned.
- I do have more of an issue with the final part of your comment, though. RfCs and other discussions WP:DETCON, consensus]
is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
This means that closes may be made even if the numerical majority is against, if the quality of arguments on the minority are much stronger than the majority, which was the case in this discussion. I explained this in my closure note. The reason I left the comment about it being a controversial close is because closes against the numerical majority can obviously look unfair, particularly if you are involved and have a strong viewpoint. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)- Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item. There was no hurt caused as I am now fully aware of the way Wikipedia skews it's policies and guidelines to fit a leftist viewpoint. However, the apology is greatly appreciated. No one seems to take policies regarding topic ban, I retract my warning and this can be either closed or deleted. Your prerogative. Mkstokes (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item. There was no hurt caused as I am now fully aware of the way Wikipedia skews it's policies and guidelines to fit a leftist viewpoint. However, the apology is greatly appreciated. No one seems to take policies regarding