| Revision as of 17:30, 5 August 2024 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,245 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 16) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:53, 17 August 2024 view source Red-tailed hawk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators32,466 edits →Arbitration notice: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| ::::You've participated in previous discussions on the topic, such as ]. ] (]) 06:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | ::::You've participated in previous discussions on the topic, such as ]. ] (]) 06:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I think that shows an interest in pedantry rather than the article content. Allow me to change the window of the statement then. I have no current interest in the content. This is true in general for PIA article content nowadays because I am focusing on other (mostly technical and enforcement related) things, unless something interesting catches my eye. To give a concrete example, it makes no difference to me whether the content of that article passes someone's "smell test", whether it offends anyone, whether it contains false information, whether it is a political weapon, whether it is complete garbage, or whether a number of editors think their personal opinions about the world have value here and are not subject to talk page guidelines. The state of articles is not my focus anymore. My interest is in whether enforcing rules at a small scale can make PIA better. It's not surprising that there will be disagreement about decisions, but your argument has not changed my view, probably because I don't care about problems with the content. Again, I encourage you to seek another opinion from someone whose judgement you trust. ] (]) 08:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | :::::I think that shows an interest in pedantry rather than the article content. Allow me to change the window of the statement then. I have no current interest in the content. This is true in general for PIA article content nowadays because I am focusing on other (mostly technical and enforcement related) things, unless something interesting catches my eye. To give a concrete example, it makes no difference to me whether the content of that article passes someone's "smell test", whether it offends anyone, whether it contains false information, whether it is a political weapon, whether it is complete garbage, or whether a number of editors think their personal opinions about the world have value here and are not subject to talk page guidelines. The state of articles is not my focus anymore. My interest is in whether enforcing rules at a small scale can make PIA better. It's not surprising that there will be disagreement about decisions, but your argument has not changed my view, probably because I don't care about problems with the content. Again, I encourage you to seek another opinion from someone whose judgement you trust. ] (]) 08:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ==Arbitration notice== | |||
| You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:53, 17 August 2024
Khirbet 'Ein Karzaliyah (Template:Lang-ar), Jordan Valley: December 2013 - January 2014
Id'eis (Template:Lang-ar), Jordan Valley: May 2014
_by_Ron.jpg) | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
| Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Premature archiving
Can you please revert your archiving?
Clearly, a number of editors think this warrants discussion, and it’s inappropriate for an WP:INVOLVED editor to shut it down prematurely. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reverting would reward a WP:TALKNO violation. The behavior is inappropriate. Reverting has, for me, less utility than dissociating the NPOV tag from the archived discussion. The OP, or anyone else, can create a talk page section and follow the Template:POV usage guidelines by "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" and "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Misplaced Pages's content policies". I'm sure there are many given the nature of that article. Then everyone can move on. If you find my argument uncompelling, that's fine, I've been wrong thousands of times, but I encourage you to seek another opinion from someone whose judgement you trust. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The OP raised whether the content passes the "smell test". Other editors then identified that the sources don't appear to support the content.
- Both of these are valuable contributions - and as an involved editor, I don't think it's appropriate for you to decide that the discussion needs to be shut down. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the content, and I'm about as involved as a bot. I understand your view. You understand my view. Clearly, we are using different value systems and priorities when it comes to talk page guideline compliance and measuring utility. That's okay. If you would like a different outcome you will need to talk to a different person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no interest in the content, and I'm about as involved as a bot.
- You've participated in previous discussions on the topic, such as this one. BilledMammal (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that shows an interest in pedantry rather than the article content. Allow me to change the window of the statement then. I have no current interest in the content. This is true in general for PIA article content nowadays because I am focusing on other (mostly technical and enforcement related) things, unless something interesting catches my eye. To give a concrete example, it makes no difference to me whether the content of that article passes someone's "smell test", whether it offends anyone, whether it contains false information, whether it is a political weapon, whether it is complete garbage, or whether a number of editors think their personal opinions about the world have value here and are not subject to talk page guidelines. The state of articles is not my focus anymore. My interest is in whether enforcing rules at a small scale can make PIA better. It's not surprising that there will be disagreement about decisions, but your argument has not changed my view, probably because I don't care about problems with the content. Again, I encourage you to seek another opinion from someone whose judgement you trust. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the content, and I'm about as involved as a bot. I understand your view. You understand my view. Clearly, we are using different value systems and priorities when it comes to talk page guideline compliance and measuring utility. That's okay. If you would like a different outcome you will need to talk to a different person. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,