This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pengo (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 31 August 2021 (→Asking for your comment about 2018 Trypophobia article RfC: copyedit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:35, 31 August 2021 by Pengo (talk | contribs) (→Asking for your comment about 2018 Trypophobia article RfC: copyedit)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Older archive: page 1 page 2 page 3 is the history of page 4. page 4 page 5, more
Happy Earth day!
Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.
What is this?
|
  
|
| |||
Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
File:Piratey-bw.svg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piratey-bw.svg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Hog Farm Bacon 23:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Proposed deletion of Isolation (board game)
The article Isolation (board game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Consortium for the Bar Code of Life:" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Consortium for the Bar Code of Life:. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#Consortium for the Bar Code of Life: until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Asking for your comment about 2018 Trypophobia article RfC
Hi, Pengo. I saw that in the RfC on Trypophobia that you were the only user who argued in favor of removing the image which induces Trypophobia. I'm now trying to explore why users otherwise unanimously decided to keep the image. I was wondering if you had any opinions on your gauge of the situation when the RfC occurred in 2018. I'm not sure if your opinion on the issue has changed, but users in the talk page for that article are emphasizing the near-unanimity of that decision. I'm wondering what makes you different in your conclusion from the other 32 users. Thank you for any information. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IronMaidenRocks: I know someone with serious trypophobia. I can tell you they and similar users were not commenting because they were not going to a page with a heap of images that make them throw up in their mouth. Why 32 other users think that's fine, you'll have to ask them. —Pengo 02:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @IronMaidenRocks: i.e. there's a huge selection bias as the page is inaccessible and actually hostile to people with more serious forms of the condition. It's like running a survey on a page that claims epilepsy doesn't exist, and asking whether we should "censor" flashing images, and the entire survey page flashes rapidly. What do you think will be the result? How much input do you expect from people with photosensitive seizures? I don't know what I said on the RfC—you didn't link it—and I don't know why you're asking, but I don't imagine my views have changed, no. —Pengo 02:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)