User talk:Locke Cole

2020 stock market crash article mergers - AN discussion

Hi, just a note to say that I've requested for an independent admin to look at the merge closure for the crash articles, and I mentioned your name there as part of what unfolded. I'm assuming good faith in the part of all participants, it's just a request for a fresh pair of eyes, to see if the discussion can be closed early. The discussion is here: [1] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions for Coronavirus disease 2019

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

IMPORTANT Consensus on an improved version of the lead for COVID-19

Hey Locke Cole,

please vote here to reach a quick consensus and remove the misleading sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Another_thought

It it much more precise now. We can improve further if you have comments but at least let's make a first step in the right direction!

Thanks,

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Best compromise to COVID-19 lead

Hi there. I note your interest in the COVID-19 lead and the issues surrounding the current edit. Please let’s clear this thing up once and for all, and reach a quick consensus if possible. I’ve included below a link for you to vote on a best compromise. Current edit as it stands is quite misleading and more damaging the longer it is up given that people will read it and freely socialise thinking that as long as nobody coughs at them then they’re all good.

This is a compromise between leaving out the ‘primarily’ which therefore mentions coughing as though it’s the only way droplets are formed (per current misleading edit), and the other side which is actually mentioning exhaling and sneezing. This way, the primary method is stated, no secondary methods stated, and the reader knows that other forms of droplet production are possible.

Please vote using the link below, thanks in advance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Compromise_of_all_positions

Magna19 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

All parties seem to have finally managed to agree in the link below. Just need a few more votes now to complete consensus and get the lead changed. Thanks in advance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Option_3c . Magna19 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Re:Page Protection

No, I won't. Consensus lists should protected in this manner, but if you gain consensus for a reduction in the protection level you may bring that to my attention or to the attention of the editors at AN or ANI and someone will be along to implement the consensus for the reduction. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

iPhone SE (2020)

Ok, please tell me what's wrong with iPhone SE (2020). I desperately want to fix it. Everything has a source, there are no rumours, and there is no predicting the future. Please tell me what's wrong. I'll fix it for you. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 18:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You're not fixing it "for [me]". 2) Everything available fails WP:CRYSTALBALL, that's the burden you must satisfy. Nothing has an actual announcement from Apple, or a product launched, or reviews of the actual released product. There's nothing to "fix" here. The articles simply should not exist. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems our argument on this got settled very quickly. (smile) DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Faygo

According to my research, the plastic bottle and twist off cap was invented in 1973 by Nathaniel Wyeth, who had worked for DuPont, not Faygo: https://apnews.com/0a880979ac8f1e5786a7e888e412f12a. Also, the term "pop" in regards to soda was first coined by Robert Southey in 1812: https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/06/why-soda-is-also-called-pop/ T Yorke (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the article talk page (the appropriate venue for this discussion) about this dispute, you can see that discussion here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Questionable Evidence relating to George Floyd Protests

Hi,

I noticed that you re-added a section of the text talking about people claiming large white supremacist involvement. Whilst there is evidence for this, what is given in the article is simply anonymous people calling into radio stations, talking to media outlets, or even worse posting on twitter, with no further evidence. This anecdotal evidence and is not encyclopedic. If you disagree, I have written a proposal on the talk page which you are welcome to give your thoughts on.

Thanks,

AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We report what secondary sources say, and if we need to modify the actual text because it is original research or does not follow what the source reports, then that makes sense. Flat out removing it is not acceptable though. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Locke Cole secondary sources reporting on someone anonymously calling into a radio station or on someone's twitter post doesn't suddenly improve the quality of the original source. It is still "someone said" so is, therefore, unencyclopedic anecdotal evidence. We shouldn't rely on random anonymous twitter posts or people calling into radio stations to populate articles. Especially if better sources are available. I'm removing the sentence about "some social media users" as they arn't a reliable source, and someone else has tagged it as dubious already. Everyone who has taken part in the discussion around this opposes at least this sentence, so there is consensus to remove it. The rest should remain until the discussion comes to a consensus. I recommend helping find a consensus on this if you don't want to spend your week reverting random people removing the text in question. Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I found two sections on the talk page, both began by you, and neither of which would qualify as a consensus to remove. Unless there's another discussion that I overlooked, please stop removing it until you achieve consensus to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Ok, since you seem determined to go on with this, I'll address your points:

• You are correct that I got your edit to the username policy backwards. My mistake. I apologize for mis-characterizing it, obviously what I should've said was that you edited policy to make a point, which is not the same thing but also pretty much never a good idea.
• And, although I did look at their talk page, and saw the notification of the RFCN, but I'll admit I did not check the history, which would have revealed that you did in fact discuss it, and the discussion was removed.
• So, when you were informed this was discussed before, and both the user in question and another user replied, your reaction was "if it's come up before it must be a problem" which is just poor logic. There's no real harm here, and knowing it's been discussed before should make you carefully consider whether there is any purpose in discussing it again. Consensus can change, but did you have any reason to believe that it had?
• " It had nothing at all to do with the edits by this editor." Then why did you say in the nomination " I'm starting a new discussion as this editor has edited in ways that would give new users an impression they are operating under some color of authority", along with a link to an edit that supposedly supports this statement?

This really is not that big of a deal, certainly not worth edit warring over a close of a discussion. You could always have just posted directly to my talk page if you wanted to talk to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 19 October 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 Wikipedia 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Exported file

Hey, I exported File:Optimized for Xbox Series X branding.svg to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used in other wikis. Enjoyer of World — Talk 03:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Dolby MLP.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dolby MLP.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

File:XBOX SERIES X logo.svg

Why did you mark File:XBOX SERIES X logo.svg as KeepLocal? DemonDays64 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons is inconsistent in how they handle trademarked logos, and I try to avoid anything that may result in the image being unexpectedly removed randomly. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:WP.TFD.joke.svg

The file File:WP.TFD.joke.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, use text instead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Your recent editing history at Embarcadero Technologies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)