Revision as of 21:03, 16 July 2013 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Race and genetics RfC: welcome← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:24, 18 July 2013 edit undoMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,250 edits →Race and genetics RfC: Arbitration enforcement requestedNext edit → | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:Thank you. :) And thanks for the assistance in summary and closing. ] (]) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | :Thank you. :) And thanks for the assistance in summary and closing. ] (]) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
::You're welcome. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | ::You're welcome. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
==WP:AE== | |||
Notifying you that I have filed an ].] 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:24, 18 July 2013
Archives | |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Citation clutter
Hi! If you didn't notice, just to let you know that I re-grouped the citations on the GM controversies page yesterday. I was looking over the history today and I saw this edit which means that my edit was (unintentionally) a revert. Sorry for not opening a discussion. :-) As I mentioned in the edit summary, the rationale is WP:CITEKILL, especially the last section ("How to trim excessive citations"); also see Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations. I'm happy to talk further if you'd like - there are a couple of other places where this issue should be addressed but I'll wait for your response before proceeding. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand. I reverted earlier because there was no explanation for the grouping but if the explanation is WP:CITEKILL I'm perfectly okay with it. BlackHades (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds great! Thanks. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Moving comments on WP:DRN
Hi! Generally, dispute resolution volunteers are given a lot of leeway when it comes to things like moving the current discussion to the bottom, collapsing or even (in severe cases and after several warnings) deleting comments or asking someone to leave if they violate our guidelines. (The usual procedure involves getting at least two other volunteers to agree -- we don't want to give anyone undue power)
On the the other hand, we try to discourage participants from doing that, because emotions are often running high and other participants can be quite touchy. There is no rule against it, and nobody will get into trouble over something like this, but things run a lot smoother if you drop me or another volunteer a line on our user page if anyone -- volunteer or participant -- moves something that you think should not be moved.
BTW, I really like the way you are approaching this. Sometimes it is a struggle to get participants to present calm, rational arguments, but everybody involved -- and you in particular -- are making some insightful arguments. Keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could you do me a favor? I will have no problem if you decide not to. Originally, I wanted my "write up a paragraph saying 'here is what I think the best reasons...'" request to be at the bottom so as to maximize the responses I would get. Through some reverting, it ended up not at the bottom, and you ended up being the only one who responded. Rather than opening up a potential can of worms by moving something again, I decided to just ask again at the bottom. Would you be so kind as to answer again at the bottom? It can be mostly cutting and pasting. As I said, I am OK if you don't want to do this, but it would help.
- Also, please note the wording of the question. I asked for an answer to the first question, a wait for the other fellow to answer, then an answer to the second question. I hope that this will encourage more back-and-forth dialog compared to answering both questions at once. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate the suggestion of the experiment to help resolving the dispute. It was a good idea of yours and would have helped but it only works if everyone agrees to partake on it. Unfortunately no one else seems willing to. I do commend your patience with all of us through all this. :-P BlackHades (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For your amazing responses on Talk:Race and genetics which really impressed me and made me appreciate you explaining that in such detail. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you. :) BlackHades (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Race and genetics RfC
Hi BlackHades, I've just closed your RfC. I just wanted to thank you for setting up such a well-structured RfC. It was very clearly explained and laid out, which made it easy to follow and close. Almost a pleasure. :) Best, SlimVirgin 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) And thanks for the assistance in summary and closing. BlackHades (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. SlimVirgin 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:AE
Notifying you that I have filed an .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)