Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2604:3d09:982:a200:7d18:5d6e:2e2a:8451 (talk) at 22:39, 19 October 2022 (→‎Nycole Turmel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the sources cited

These revisions I made were deleted because User:Sundayclose said it was not in the sources cited but I am not sure about that being true could you check that for me and if it IS in the sources cited could you bring it back please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1114876159&oldid=1114854589 Railtrailssuck (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ivanvector I just found out that Sundayclose seems to have a history of not looking at the sources in certain edits, or maybe is just indiscriminately reverting a new user and flooding their talk page with inappropriate warnings? I think he just did that to me the second time on the updates I made on Murder of David Dorn.--Railtrailssuck (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Rfd close of Bela_River_(disambiguation)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Bela_River_(disambiguation), I do not understand why this was closed procedurally. While "disambiguate" is a common RfD outcome, there must be consensus for it, and a single user drafting a disambiguation page below a redirect does not immediately procedurally render a current RfD discussion moot or lead to the redirect becoming a disambiguation page automatically, or require a new discussion at another venue. No user was given the opportunity to comment on Jay's proposal, let alone reach consensus to disambiguate. I request this discussion be reopened, as there was no justification for closing it. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to disambiguate and I did not want to give the impression that there was. But as I explained in my close, creating the disambiguation addressed the deletion concern, and the discussion was veering off-topic into which topics should be included on it. Or you could think of it this way: the redirect that was the subject of the discussion no longer exists as it's been replaced with a disambiguation page. If you think that disambiguation page should be deleted, you should nominate it at AFD. Or never mind, Joy has already done that; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bela River (disambiguation). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I also think that you jumped the gun there and forced us to go through another set of procedural hoops that are excessive. If there was no Twinkle, I'd care a lot more, but still, please don't do it in the future. We should not need like half a month of discussion about something this small, it's really making us look so bureaucratic that any newbie would be scared. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly if it looks like a duck and makes a sound like a duck .... but point taken. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any user is free to create a disambiguation page over a redirect, but not while it is under discussion at RfD. And in this case, a disambiguation page was not created over the redirect, it was drafted under it, which is the usual procedure (as instructed by the RfD template). So the only reason a disambiguation page replaced the redirect is because you closed the discussion and made it so without there being consensus to do so. I been active at Rfd for a while now and I have never seen a drafted disambiguation page lead to a procedural close. But I guess all this really is moot now that it is at Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure even Jay, who closes RfDs often, would agree this close was improper. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new to RfD nor to closing discussions, though I've been on hiatus for a while, but believe me that I appreciate your feedback. But I think we can all agree it wouldn't make things any less complicated if I reopened the RfD at this point. I say we let this play out - it appears to be heading for a SNOW close, but the redirect was there for 4 years, it won't hurt anything if this takes another few days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree let's let the Afd run its course at this point regarding how best to disambiguate all of these related terms. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I agree with Mdewman6. I'm as surprised by the close as he is! I would suggest re-opening the RfD and closing the AfD procedurally. Also, in this case it's better to have all the discussion at one place than splitting it across forums. Jay 💬 02:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nycole Turmel

Hello, the reason I added "acting" under Leader of the Official Opposition is because due to the NDP holding Official Opposition status at the time the interim NDP leader was by extension the Official Opposition Leader. However, after Layton's death she "officially" assumed the role since he was obviously not coming back. I will not revert your edit unless and until we work this issue out. Just wanted to explain myself. Thank You. 2604:3D09:982:A200:A57A:6360:7DD0:6ABD (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a reliable source which states that Turmel was interim or acting leader during the time that Layton was ill but before his death. Without a reliable source your edit is original research and cannot be published here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says she was on her Parliament of Canada bio. Not original research. 184.71.49.238 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that but you haven't actually provided the source. The source in the article, this one, gives dates of her holding the title of Leader of the Official Opposition as "2011.08.23 - 2012.03.23", i.e. from Layton's death to Mulcair's election. The article also states, "At the time, because Parliament was in summer recess and Layton was hoping to return when Parliament resumed in September, Turmel did not formally assume the role of Leader of the Official Opposition. She only assumed that office upon Jack Layton's death on August 22, 2011 ..." (emphasis added). As for her Parliament bio, you haven't indicated where you actually found it but ourcommons.ca also lists her as Leader of the Opposition starting August 23, 2011 and ending March 24, 2012. If you have a reliable source which contradicts these dates, you will need to provide it, and then we can try to reconcile why they're giving different information and what it means for our article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NDP was the Official Opposition at the time which made her legally Opposition leader. It’s how the parliamentary system works. Yes, she formally assumed after Layton’s death hence my edit for acting. Regardless if it was summer break she was legally the opposition leader. 2604:3D09:982:A200:19B8:B374:4BA2:E2C (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence that that is the case does not make it so. We have several sources in agreement that Layton was Leader of the Official Opposition up to his death, and none saying Turmel was Leader of the Official Opposition, in any capacity, prior to Layton's death. If you want to challenge these sources you need to provide sources of your own, and you still have not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Your insistence that that is the case does not make it so." The NDP didn't form the Official Opposition after the 2011 election?
Explain this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-s-layton-becomes-official-opposition-leader-1.1086887
Nycole Turmel herself said she started as Opposition leader during Layton's leave. "In July 2011 she was appointed Leaderof the Official Opposition and act as such for nine months until the election of Mr. Mulcair.":https://ca.linkedin.com/in/nycole-turmel-97a2b230

Not to mention news articles referred to her as Opposition leader prior to Layton's death. 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Layton's recommendation that Turmel step in as temporary Official Opposition leader was accepted by the NDP caucus and party's executive."
Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/turmel-vows-to-stay-on-until-ndp-chooses-leader-1.1023554 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=1117097662"