Jump to content

User talk:Dlthewave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vice regent (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 14 August 2021 (→‎CRP and filibustering: sorry for the delay, here's my response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discretionary Sanctions Awareness:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

dlthewave 20:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate monuments

I was hoping you'd comment on a matter at the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials talk page.--MagicatthemovieS

Lookout, Wyoming

Hello Dlthewave, i answered you on the page's talk section. I'm at your disposal to clarify issues related to the matter.
Your sincerely,
Faqu, talk. 21 May 2020, 02:37

FYI

A discussion that may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:Editing policy#Edit summaries for reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 14

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.

Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. 2605:A601:A961:0:2880:4139:E8E6:B69 (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee and 1RR

I see you've had some disagreements with Springee lately concerning the 1RR rule, and while I haven't followed in detail I'm concerned as Springee launched a WP:ANI action against me in February this year based on a spurious interpretation of 1RR,[1] and then subsequently launched another action months later against a different editor based on the same incorrect interpretation, in apparent ignorance of the earlier ruling.[2] While Springee is a frequent visitor to my talk page (65 mentions at present), I had no idea they were on a voluntary 1RR restriction and they have never indicated this to me. I'm somewhat concerned by what I see as a pattern of selective application of policy and POV-pushing, especially on pages related to conservative political figures like Andy Ngo. I'd be interested to know if you've observed this as well Noteduck (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Dlthewave, you warned me about what you felt was a 1RR violation. What is your opinion regarding this pair of reverts [[3]], [[4]]? Springee (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I breached the 1RR it was an error and I'll revert it - of course, this is good material that belongs on the page, so I could restore it later Noteduck (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Noteduck acknowledged their mistake and self-reverted. I might have concerns if this became an ongoing issue. –dlthewave 18:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

Reverted edit on Oath Keepers

The text clearly states that it is the organization's own description of requirements for members. In this case sourced from the organization's own website is okay. If you still have issues with it being reverted, please make a case for a change on the Talk page so we can work out a solution if need be. Myotus (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

Would you mind taking a look at this

Dlthewave, I know you have been concerned about editors crossing over from content disagreements to attacking other editors. Since you commented here [[5]] would you mind commenting on the accusations of lying etc leveled against me? I would appreciate if you could try to calm that situation down a bit. Thanks! Springee (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CRP and filibustering

I noticed you said at ANI: If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure [X] isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering. (Polite ping to El_C who was also in that conversation)

I think I have some experience with that. WP:CRP, while a great policy, does lead to filibustering and deadlock. A dedicated admin would be great, but they are hard to find as they're generally busy with other things. Do you have other ideas on how the policy can be modified to prevent filibustering? Maybe we should have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus required about how this should be addressed.VR talk 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one, since article editing restrictions aren't really effective against long term "civil POV pushers" who avoid bright-line violations like edit warring and restoring disputed content. I'm not sure how one would write a rule that targets behaviors like stonewalling and sealioning. I do think we need less of a "don't get involved in content disputes" among admins, especially at AE and ANI, since this type of thing would be better addressed through discretionary actions by individual admins who are willing to look at entire discussions rather than just sets of diffs. –dlthewave 19:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: you're right that civil pov pushing is hard to tackle. How do we get more admins to engage in moderating content disputes? Here is one suggestion (that I also made at User talk:Mhhossein#Policy proposals). WP:ANRFC is request for admins to close discussions carefully evaluating arguments from all sides. This is not a behavioral evaluation but a content and policy evaluation. What if we made a section there for request to moderate a discussion (currently that board is just for requests to assess consensus in the discussion). I'd love to hear your thoughts.VR talk 01:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Category:American propagandists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_8#Category:American_propagandists. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Renat 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]