User talk:Sunshineisles2
This is Sunshineisles2's talk page , where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
ITN recognition for Tom Shales
On 18 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tom Shales, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Ewa Podleś
On 24 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ewa Podleś, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Norman Jewison
On 26 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Norman Jewison, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Willett Advisors
Hello, I work for Steven Rattner, whose article you contributed to significantly several months ago. I recently posted an edit request at the talk page of Steve's investment firm Willett Advisors and thought you might be interested in taking a look - at Talk:Willett Advisors#Updates to the article. An editor responded initially to the request, asking for clarification, but he has not followed up since I clarified the request about two weeks ago. I hope you'll consider making the changes I've proposed. Thank you, E at rattner (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I have taken a look at the edit requests and added the new location per your sources. As for your other questions, I would recommend reaching back out to that editor and seeing if they might be able to provide further insight on the best way forward. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)]
- Thank you for your assistance. It looks like the other editor (Spintendo) has been mostly inactive over the past month, which might explain why he hasn't responded in the discussion. So I'm hoping you'll agree to review and implement the other two changes I've proposed, in Spintendo's absence. I would make the edits myself if not for my conflict of interest. Thanks again! E at rattner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll have another look at it, but I would prefer to hear more about the original objections, hopefully from Spintendo, before taking any actions. I'm honestly not sure of the right etiquette to reach back out and specifically get in contact on a particular ongoing issue (such as through pinging on the original dsicussion) however. Perhaps it would be worth leaving a message on their talk page? Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)]
- My understanding is that Spintendo did not voice any objections to my proposal, but only asked for a clearer explanation of why I believe the COATRACK and verification-failing content should be removed. And, based on Spintendo's recent contributions (a total of 3 edits since Jan. 16), it looks like a user talk page post would be unhelpful. That's why I'm looking for another unbiased editor to implement what I've requested. But I would be happy to seek out a different editor if you still prefer not to get involved. Much appreciated, E at rattner (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best. Scenarios like these are not my area of expertise as an editor, so I don't know how much help I could be. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes, I think that would be best. Scenarios like these are not my area of expertise as an editor, so I don't know how much help I could be.
- My understanding is that Spintendo did not voice any objections to my proposal, but only asked for a clearer explanation of why I believe the COATRACK and verification-failing content should be removed. And, based on Spintendo's recent contributions (a total of 3 edits since Jan. 16), it looks like a user talk page post would be unhelpful. That's why I'm looking for another unbiased editor to implement what I've requested. But I would be happy to seek out a different editor if you still prefer not to get involved. Much appreciated, E at rattner (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll have another look at it, but I would prefer to hear more about the original objections, hopefully from Spintendo, before taking any actions. I'm honestly not sure of the right etiquette to reach back out and specifically get in contact on a particular ongoing issue (such as through pinging on the original dsicussion) however. Perhaps it would be worth leaving a message on their talk page?
- Thank you for your assistance. It looks like the other editor (Spintendo) has been mostly inactive over the past month, which might explain why he hasn't responded in the discussion. So I'm hoping you'll agree to review and implement the other two changes I've proposed, in Spintendo's absence. I would make the edits myself if not for my conflict of interest. Thanks again! E at rattner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Paul D'Amato (actor)
On 24 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul D'Amato (actor), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"primarily known" as a legislator?
The category "19th-century American legislators" which you created says that it is for "People primarily notable for holding a legislative office in the United States during the 19th century." So.... would you say that if someone was an elected legislator, but is not *primarily* known as a legislator, this category would be inappropriate? I noticed this on the article John P. Ordway, who is primarily known as a composer and music entrepreneur. I asked User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who had added a related category, and he seemed to think that anyone who was a legislator should get the legislator category... which to my mind would be wrong with the "primarily" language in the description. And he suggested asking the creator of the category. So, what do you think? Should we remove the "primarily", or should the category get pruned down to career politicians? Brianyoumans (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, my intention with that comment was in reference to political careers primarily defined through notability as legislators. I was mainly thinking that a president who served in Congress shouldn't be moved to the "legislators" category. The goal was to reduce the size of the "x-century American politicians" categories, which Ordway was previously in. I would say that Ordway belongs in the legislators category because his political career was exclusively in a legislature. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Ah, so you were trying to reduce essentially duplicative categories. But, you see, someone (User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao) has gone around and added in "Category:19th century Massachusetts politician", so we are back to having both a legislator and a politician category. And, of course, they aren't quite duplicates, since one is state-specific. I'm not sure I see an easy fix here. But, about the wording, so what you meant was more along the line of "Persons whose highest or best-known political office was in a legislature." Or something along those lines. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was referring narrowly within the context of political careers with that comment. As for the state categories, I'm personally not instinctually against having both a state politician and legislator category, since the original intention of the legislator category was to reduce the size of the "American politicians" categories specifically. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes, I was referring narrowly within the context of political careers with that comment. As for the state categories, I'm personally not instinctually against having both a state politician and legislator category, since the original intention of the legislator category was to reduce the size of the "American politicians" categories specifically.
- Ah, so you were trying to reduce essentially duplicative categories. But, you see, someone (User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao) has gone around and added in "Category:19th century Massachusetts politician", so we are back to having both a legislator and a politician category. And, of course, they aren't quite duplicates, since one is state-specific. I'm not sure I see an easy fix here. But, about the wording, so what you meant was more along the line of "Persons whose highest or best-known political office was in a legislature." Or something along those lines. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
About marking edits as minor
Hey Sunshineisles2, thanks for your contributions to
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Saxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moderate Republican.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)