| Revision as of 05:42, 28 November 2021 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,758 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Fæ/2021) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:16, 27 December 2024 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,758 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Fæ/2024) (bot | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| {{Off and On WikiBreak}} | {{Off and On WikiBreak}} | ||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| == Blocking admin Review == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| I have returned to the project after a long break and was conscious that one of the things I left undone was a review of my block here and indications of where I saw the path forward. I have reviewed what happened at the time of blocking, events since and the comments since the block. What was intended to be a quick look at Commons turned into a rabbithole of getting sucked into reading the commons vp and com:anu over the ridiculous dispute with a current arb here. I was struck that the key concern expressed here against unblocking - namely the diffusion of drama and tendency to personalise and escalate disagreements by throwing petrol everywhere was playing out in commons in front of my eyes. Clearly nothing has changed about fae’s approach and, I fear, it is unreasonable to expect it to change in future. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Having thought about it long and hard, I have concluded that there is no path forward for fae here that will not eventually lead to unnecessary drama, unnecessary drama unnecessarily escalated and massive disruption to this project as a consequence. I therefore now fully oppose an unblock under any circumstances. The only path left is for <s>either </s>an appeal to the community<s> or to arbcom</s> | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Is this unfair on fae? Probably yes, but sometimes we just have to look at the overall good of the project and in my opinion and of many of those commenting, the good of the project does not have fae editing here because of the eventual expectation of unnecessary drama and disruption. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to note, that since the dissolution of BASC, since this is not based on private data, I do not believe Appeal to Arbcom is a route available to Fae. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Struck per you comments. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ]; please {{]}} me in replies)</small></span> <s>15:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)</s> 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I defy anyone to read the discussion at commons and find a consensus that this is how the discussion characterised the dispute. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I suppose my brand of stupid (irreverence if you squint) didn't flow that well in that discussion... {{shrug}} Kind of weird Fæ thought I was a {{tq|burner sock account}}, seeing as we've had like a million interactions here at en over the years (none too noteworthy, but still). Still, a stressful moment for them to be sure, so I understand and did not take it as a slight. ] 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll just preface this by saying that regardless of the avenue of appeal, I am obviously just another user with an opinion in this case and am not speaking as an arbitrator. Regarding the recent dramafest at Commons: While opinions differed over there as to the appropriateness of my remarks, nobody with any sense agreed with Fae's completely specious accusations that I was somehow involved in doxxing them and actively encouraging others to do them physical harm. They reproduced every remark I made in that thread as "evidence" that I was doing this, so it's all there to see. Please do let me know if you can actually find what they say I was doing. Fae's main supporters there were a person banned by arbcom many years ago, whose socks I have helped to block here, and a globally banned troll who runs an attack site that has like 15 threads about how horrible I am. So, a lot of axe-grinding was going there in between the more thoughtful comments from other users. I don't like ''Fae'', one specific person with a toxic personality, who happens to be queer. I would feel the same if they were straighter than a ruler. ] (]) 19:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| Read an old 2019 BLP thread on terfs and wp:label, and you made a very nice and appreciated point about not discouraging trans editors from participating in trans topics. Have a cat! | |||
| <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 20:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
Latest revision as of 19:16, 27 December 2024
 Archives |
|
/2014 /2015 /2016 /2017 /2018 /2019 /2020 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
 | When I do reply it may be from a mobile phone or by email.  Due to routinely using public wifi, my edits will normally be via ToR to avoid browser hijacking. |
 | Fæ is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Nomination of Clare Dimyon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clare Dimyon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clare Dimyon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for British Library
British Library has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)