User talk:Omni Flames/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Template:No documentation
I saw you decided to merge {{No documentation}} into {{Improve documentation}}. I didn't see the discussion in time, in which two editors agreed with the nomination, but 1. The editor who nominated this template played unfair, by changing the documentation of "Improve documentation" on the same day he nominated the template for merging as though it includes "missing" documentation as well.[1] 2. Isn't there a large difference between improving the existing and creating the non-existing? 3. The two templates add different categories, "Templates with incorrect documentation" as opposed to "Template documentation pages without documentation", so they can not be merged at all. I would argue to undo the redirect of "No documentation". Debresser (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Well, the thing is that, if possible, I think it's better to have just one template that has more than one purpose, than having multiple templates which are similar in their use. As for your third point, the two categories can be merged as well, and that's probably what will happen when these two templates are merged. Anyway, these are all points that I recommend bringing up with the nominator and participants of the discussion. My role as closer is to read over the discussion and close it based on what I believe is the consensus and I believe I've done that perfectly well, though please do feel free to bring up any concerns with my interpretation of consensus. Omni Flames (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: The (slight) repurposing of {{Improve documentation}} was actually performed in 2012. It was just the documentation that was updated last month. I think you should not revert the decision of this TfD unilaterally as you have done, but wait for comments from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, trying to overturn the result of a public TfD with a private userpage discussion is not the way things are done. I too found problems with OF's closure of the TfD (marking both templates as "being deleted" was NOT what was agreed). But, absent a re-opening of the TfD, a merger WILL go ahead. If that means a merger of categories, "Templates with incorrect documentation" and "Template documentation pages without documentation" into Category:Templates with missing or incorrect documentation, as well as the merger of templates, then so be it. Your three reversions of edits I carried out in pursuit of the merger are the tip of the iceberg, you have somewhere near another 190 reversions to go to finish the job. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cabayi: To clarify, I didn't intend to mark the templates as being deleted, looks like I pressed the wrong button on the script I was using. Thanks for fixing that. Omni Flames (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, trying to overturn the result of a public TfD with a private userpage discussion is not the way things are done. I too found problems with OF's closure of the TfD (marking both templates as "being deleted" was NOT what was agreed). But, absent a re-opening of the TfD, a merger WILL go ahead. If that means a merger of categories, "Templates with incorrect documentation" and "Template documentation pages without documentation" into Category:Templates with missing or incorrect documentation, as well as the merger of templates, then so be it. Your three reversions of edits I carried out in pursuit of the merger are the tip of the iceberg, you have somewhere near another 190 reversions to go to finish the job. Cabayi (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: If you wish to allege that I "played unfair", please have the courtesy to ping me. A cursory examination of the template's code, prior to any edit I recently made, will show that the change I made to its documentation merely reflected what that code did; which was to display the wording in
'''This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Module=module|#default=template}}'s documentation is missing or does not accurately describe its functionality''' or the parameters in its code.. Note the inclusion of ...is missing or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)- @Pigsonthewing As was correctly noted by Martin above, the re-purposing was done in 2012, also by you. So that is still not playing fair. If you found, as you state in the edit summary of 2012, that this template was being used on pages with missing documentation, you should have replaced it at that time with "No documentation", but not adapt the template. I didn't ping you, because I was asking the closing admin for the time being. No offense intended.
- @All Since we're all here now. The issue remains, however, that I think, for the 3 reasons stated above, that the templates should not have been merged. The discussion simply didn't address these reasons. What course of action would be recommended? Let's re-open the discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to get pedantic about the template's history, you'll see that it was me who created it in 2011; I restored the original purpose in 2012; and that has stood by consensus for over four years - during the middle of which period, you edited it without challenging that restoration. Your "you should" assertion is merely an opinion. And I didn't say I was offended by your failure to notify me that I was being discussed. The correct process now, if you believe you have a case that the closure was improper, is deletion review; I'll wager the decision will be upheld. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deletion review is not the correct venue. They don't review the merits of the case, just whether the decision was based according to consensus at the time. That is not the question here. I think that based on my objections, which are several and serious, the closing editor is justified to re-open this case, and discussion can continue. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: I will not be reopening the discussion just because one editor objects to the result. If you really want the template back, I recommend you start an RFC or something. Just please, don't decide to ignore the consensus and overturn the result of the discussion. Omni Flames (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- That is the problem with Wikipedia lately: "one editor objects to the result" is your argument. You don't even care about the good arguments I mentioned, which, if I had seen the discussion, would likely have changed it decisively. I am not going to open Rfc of all things over such a small matter. Too many bureaucrats, and too few editors who care. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, There was nothing improper in the way the discussion was announced, carried out, or closed. It's unfortunate you didn't see the discussion, but you didn't. Discussions can't be held open indefinitely in case someone is struck by l'esprit de l'escalier. Nor did you notice in the four days after the discussion's closure until I started acting on the request. By the time you did notice and started reverting it was already too late as there were no transclusions left. Your quip "Too many bureaucrats, and too few editors who care" is insulting to OF who has acted fairly and above board. OF is not to blame that you didn't notice in time. Cabayi (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- "if I had seen the discussion": but the thing is Debresser, you didn't and it was closed based on the existing consensus. I'm sorry that you didn't see the TFD in time, but that's irrelevant. We don't just keep discussions open until someone brings up points against the nomination. As I've already mentioned, if you really want the templates to be unmerged, then there are ways to do that, but if you can't be bothered to gain consensus for the template to be recreated, then clearly you don't think it's very important. Omni Flames (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Re-opening the discussion is something that is within your discretion, even though the closure was correct at he time, and it is the easiest way to go. Indeed, the issue is not very important, but the merge was a mistake. Mistakes happen, but only bureaucrats perpetuate them. And I don't mean only Omni Flames, but Wikipedia as a whole. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- "if I had seen the discussion": but the thing is Debresser, you didn't and it was closed based on the existing consensus. I'm sorry that you didn't see the TFD in time, but that's irrelevant. We don't just keep discussions open until someone brings up points against the nomination. As I've already mentioned, if you really want the templates to be unmerged, then there are ways to do that, but if you can't be bothered to gain consensus for the template to be recreated, then clearly you don't think it's very important. Omni Flames (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, There was nothing improper in the way the discussion was announced, carried out, or closed. It's unfortunate you didn't see the discussion, but you didn't. Discussions can't be held open indefinitely in case someone is struck by l'esprit de l'escalier. Nor did you notice in the four days after the discussion's closure until I started acting on the request. By the time you did notice and started reverting it was already too late as there were no transclusions left. Your quip "Too many bureaucrats, and too few editors who care" is insulting to OF who has acted fairly and above board. OF is not to blame that you didn't notice in time. Cabayi (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- That is the problem with Wikipedia lately: "one editor objects to the result" is your argument. You don't even care about the good arguments I mentioned, which, if I had seen the discussion, would likely have changed it decisively. I am not going to open Rfc of all things over such a small matter. Too many bureaucrats, and too few editors who care. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: I will not be reopening the discussion just because one editor objects to the result. If you really want the template back, I recommend you start an RFC or something. Just please, don't decide to ignore the consensus and overturn the result of the discussion. Omni Flames (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deletion review is not the correct venue. They don't review the merits of the case, just whether the decision was based according to consensus at the time. That is not the question here. I think that based on my objections, which are several and serious, the closing editor is justified to re-open this case, and discussion can continue. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to get pedantic about the template's history, you'll see that it was me who created it in 2011; I restored the original purpose in 2012; and that has stood by consensus for over four years - during the middle of which period, you edited it without challenging that restoration. Your "you should" assertion is merely an opinion. And I didn't say I was offended by your failure to notify me that I was being discussed. The correct process now, if you believe you have a case that the closure was improper, is deletion review; I'll wager the decision will be upheld. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Rather more faith may be required
As it was also being discussed on the editor's talk page. Either way, you are advised not to assume 'just because you feel like it,' but rather, establish the facts first. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 10:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: We don't delete NOTNOW RFAs. They are useful from a historical perspective. If the editor wants it deleted under G7, fine, but they haven't indicated that. Omni Flames (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- My point is that the manner in which you expressed yourself was less than collegiate. Muffled Pocketed 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Okay fair enough, I apologise for the poorly worded edit summary. Omni Flames (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- My point is that the manner in which you expressed yourself was less than collegiate. Muffled Pocketed 10:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| You're the bigger man.
Respect. Continue your quality editing! Muffled Pocketed 11:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
- Didn't see that coming. Glad we could get that minor dispute sorted out. Omni Flames (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Protect user pages by default
A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| You did great. sbf1998✔ 07:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
- Why, thank you! Omni Flames (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Project News
The following articles were nominated for GA status: ReaLemon Carrot Malvern Water (bottled water)
Article alerts |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Food and drink articles by quality and importance
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2016)
 Wedding ring being placed on during a wedding ceremony
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Holy Spirit • Spanish West Indies Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 September 2016
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
- Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism
Solomon Blatt Jr.
Hi-Is the article about Solomon Blatt Jr. being deleted? Something happen that the article did not come into review when there was a technical redirect. Solomon Blatt was a United States court judge and was notable. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- @RFD: All I did was move the page to a new title. Whether or not it's being deleted I don't know, although AFAICT it isn't. Omni Flames (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks-No problems in getting to the article-RFD (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
  Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your GA nomination of Sneaky Sneaky
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sneaky Sneaky you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re NewspaperArchive signup
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Omni
I am Sumanth Pola Pursuing masters in Lawrence technological University, Please guide me in editting wikipedia content and its features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pola sumanth (talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2016)
 Adarsha School Narayanganj in Dhaka, Bangladesh
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Wedding ring • Holy Spirit Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
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) 11:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)