| Revision as of 17:41, 21 July 2023 editDenaar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,526 edits Collapsing Notices← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 25 July 2023 edit undoLicks-rocks (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,482 edits →GAG 2: new sectionTags: Reverted New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ] You have recently made edits related to ] and ]. This is a standard message to inform you that ] and ] is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see ]. <!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert --> ] (]) 16:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC) | ] You have recently made edits related to ] and ]. This is a standard message to inform you that ] and ] is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see ]. <!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert --> ] (]) 16:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
| {{cob}} | {{cob}} | ||
| == GAG 2 == | |||
| "I've asked several times now for someone to explain why talk page discussions are being collapsed here when they haven't naturally come to a close - per essay ] this is not considered acceptable civil behavior - beyond that, I can't find any justification for why users keep doing this. I'd like to ask again for the policy or guideline. ] (]) 21:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)" | |||
| :I can answer that question for you. The sentence you want to look at is "They are typically used in long threads, when a side conversation gets too large (and too far from the main topic) as to be an inconvenience. They're also used to enclose entire threads sometimes, when those threads are particularly unproductive.". That is, threads that get either too long or unproductive are closed as part of normal procedure, to prevent further time-wasting. Something is not "superhatting" just because it's a close you disagree with. SUPERHAT it is a corollary of ], which is to say it's only about closing a discussion with your opinion in the closure caption rather than with a discussion summary or appropriate closure reason. Off-topic and WP:STICK are both appropriate closure reasons. | |||
| --] (]) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 25 July 2023
| This is Denaar's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
If you would like to discuss an edit I make, please do so on the talk page of that article. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative place, it's ok to disagree on article direction! The talk pages are there to help generate consensus about the article. If you bring article discussion here, I'll move it to the talk page of that article and respond there. Denaar (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Important alert
| This appears to be an obsolete AC/DS notice from the pre-CTopics era. |
|---|
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place |
- Denaar, This appears to me to be an obsolete notice that no longer represents the current guidance of the Arbitration Committee on this topic. I believe that this notice was placed in good faith, and an admin might interpret it as a good-enough proxy for the correct one, so it's probably wise to read the current advice about contentious topics in general, and more particularly the one about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- The article I was working on wasn't tagged - and I didn't realize it was a minefield at the time! I appreciate the correct link. Denaar (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
GAG
I think you make a lot of improvements that I do agree with, and I don't mean to come off as stonewalling or confrontational. I appreciate your conviction and resolve to adhere to 5p, I just don't see the way this topic is being treated as changing the lens through which policy is viewed. It seems like STATUS QUO to me. DN (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to collaborate and not take things personally. I think that "far-right" is hyperbole being used to create a reaction, designed to sound impartial without actually being impartial. But after clicking on the link and reading the lead on the article for far-right... I mean, wow, that's an extreme word.
- Another one I'm stuck on is this article for Andreas Kalcker. I am not saying the criticism isn't fair, but I don't think the way this article stands is compliant with Misplaced Pages standards, but I'm not sure what to do with it. I don't think he's notable, but I think there really IS a story in "The use of MMS in Argentina during Covid" that has resulted in several deaths, and a whole bunch of people involved, a lot of information in those sources not in the article because none of it applies to him - but it's quite the story. I'm still trying to figure out how to approach it fairly. Denaar (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
| Contentious topics |
|---|
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
|
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see GAG 2
"I've asked several times now for someone to explain why talk page discussions are being collapsed here when they haven't naturally come to a close - per essay WP:Superhatting this is not considered acceptable civil behavior - beyond that, I can't find any justification for why users keep doing this. I'd like to ask again for the policy or guideline. Denaar (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)"
- I can answer that question for you. The sentence you want to look at is "They are typically used in long threads, when a side conversation gets too large (and too far from the main topic) as to be an inconvenience. They're also used to enclose entire threads sometimes, when those threads are particularly unproductive.". That is, threads that get either too long or unproductive are closed as part of normal procedure, to prevent further time-wasting. Something is not "superhatting" just because it's a close you disagree with. SUPERHAT it is a corollary of SUPERVOTE, which is to say it's only about closing a discussion with your opinion in the closure caption rather than with a discussion summary or appropriate closure reason. Off-topic and WP:STICK are both appropriate closure reasons.