User talk:TParis: Difference between revisions

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello TParis: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

From my family to yours: Merry Christmas, Paris! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE or not?

The references to BEFORE being non-mandatory you linked to in the soon-to-end RfA date from 2015 and 2011--that's seven and ten years ago. I've been pleasantly surprised to see AfD culture changing to the point that yes, BEFORE is a behavioral expectation. Wikipedia has this funny consensus thing, where if a bunch of people will object to an RFA pretty solely on the basis of the candidate's understanding of deletion policy... Well, it's splitting hairs to say it's not policy. Much like saying N is a guideline, not a policy--it may be technically correct, but it doesn't adequately reflect how Wikipedia works in practice. In the intervening years, the tools for searching have gotten much better, so the burden of BEFORE is substantially lower, which I suspect is part of what's driving the community expectation. Perchance, have you found any more current repudiations of BEFORE? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not splitting hairs. We have a process for making it policy and it hasn't happened yet. The two discussions I linked are the most recent. If you feel the winds have changed, then take it to WP:VPP and propose it be made policy. If you cannot, it is not. I don't have to prove there isn't, the onus is on you to prove that there is support through a formal and widely disseminated WP:RFC. I know you know that, I recognize your name, you've been around for awhile.--v/r - T P 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, the point that everyone is missing, especially when doing a character assassination of the one person NPP needs, is that whether you like 'BEFORE' or not, the issues in SoWhy's list (which did the most damage) are all edge cases. They do not represent a pattern at all. Within his permitted discretion, MB actually handled correctly in everyone one of them, and he is not an 'enthusiastic deletionist'. The 'crats will not bother to check , and there is no appeal to them to do otherwise, but it took other editors at least one hour to scrape the Internet for a couple of flimsy sources at those AfD. If that's what you expect New Page Reviewers to do every time they reject a new article, you can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Be careful what you ask for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II
Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 The references to BEFORE being non-mandatory you linked to in the soon-to-end RfA date from 2015 and 2011--that's seven and ten years ago. I've been pleasantly surprised to see AfD culture changing to the point that yes, BEFORE ''is'' a behavioral expectation. Wikipedia has this funny consensus thing, where if a bunch of people will object to an RFA pretty solely on the basis of the candidate's understanding of deletion policy... Well, it's splitting hairs to say it's not policy. Much like saying N is a guideline, not a policy--it may be technically correct, but it doesn't adequately reflect how Wikipedia works in practice. In the intervening years, the tools for searching have gotten much better, so the burden of BEFORE is substantially lower, which I suspect is part of what's driving the community expectation. Perchance, have you found any more current repudiations of BEFORE? Cheers, [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 :It's not splitting hairs.  We have a process for making it policy and it hasn't happened yet.  The two discussions I linked are the most recent.  If you feel the winds have changed, then take it to [[WP:VPP]] and propose it be made policy.  If you cannot, it is not.  I don't have to prove there isn't, the onus is on you to prove that there is support through a formal and widely disseminated [[WP:RFC]].  I know you know that, I recognize your name, you've been around for awhile.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
+::{{u|Jclemens}}, the point that everyone is missing, especially when doing a character assassination of the one person NPP needs, is that whether you like 'BEFORE' or not, the  issues in {{u|SoWhy}}'s list (which did the most damage) are ''all'' edge cases. They do not represent a pattern at all. Within his permitted discretion,  MB actually handled correctly in everyone one of them, and he is not an 'enthusiastic deletionist'. The 'crats will not bother to check , and there is no appeal to them to do otherwise, but it took other editors ''at least'' one hour to scrape the Internet for a couple of flimsy sources at those AfD. If that's what you expect New Page Reviewers to do every time they reject a new article, you can say 'good bye' immediately to the NPP process. Be careful what you ask for. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 == ''The Bugle'': Issue 201, January 2023 ==