User talk:Gusfriend

A Vital barnstar for you!

		Vital Barnstar
		Thanks for coming from the watchlist and improve Telescope to 30kB, as part of the 30 kB drive. I had tried to improve it to 30 kB before but at the time I couldn't get around to do it and eventually quit. So well done – you did what I haven't be able to do. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots: RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox

I see that you closed this RFC as "The numbers are approximately equal so there is no consensus to include the regnal number at the top of the infobox." However, this means there is also no consensus to exclude it, thus no justification for removing it - it's already in many other articles and has been for many years. Deb (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the talk page RfC was that it was to add the number to a page that did not have it based on:

1. The fact that it continued on from the discussion at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Mary I which started when someone added the number and it was reverted.
2. The first person in the survey stating that it is not in the infobox.
3. The fact that the article did not have the number there prior to opening the RfC.

As there was no consensus then the status quo (i.e. not having it in the page) is kept per WP:NOCONSENSUS. I would also like to note that a RfC at the relevant MOS or the Village Pump would be the best way to achieve consistency across multiple articles. Having said all of that please feel free to initiate a closure review. Gusfriend (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure of RfC on Denials

Hey Gusfriend. I'd like to challenge your closure of the RfC on Denials. WP:DETCON tells us that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. and WP:CLOSE#How to determine the outcome states that Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes and the closer must read the arguments presented.

Your closure is pretty short, only two sentences with the second being implementation notes. In your closure you state that There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1...as it received more !votes than everything else combined. When reading the closure against both the DETCON policy and CLOSE information page I've linked above, you've made no mention of how you ascertained the relative strengths of the arguments as viewed through policy. I was hoping if you could clarify if your closure was entirely based on numeric distribution of the !votes, or if you made any determination of the various policy points raised by all sides of that discussion. If however your closure was entirely based on the number of !votes, and no assessment of the arguments presented was undertaken, I would request that you undo the closure and relist it for needing closure. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for the brevity of the closure. Unfortunately I was not at my oratorical best when I closed the discussion and after 5-10 minutes couldn't think of a phrasing that didn't sound condescending so I left it out.

I did review the different comments through the prism of Wikipedia policies rather than just count responses. When reading through the comments I was struck by the fact that options 1-3 were, essentially, functionally equivalent once other Wikipedia policies were taken into account. This was noted by several people including statements that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are core content policies and are explicitly stated at the top of the page as well as the discussions about balance. Consequently, it came down to how explicit the community wanted the statement to be and overall the consensus appeared to be to go for something brief with the understanding that this did not overwrite Wikipedia policies. As such, if I were to close it now I would say something like:

At this time there appears to be a consensus for option 1 and it should be added to the page. It is important to note that this text, and indeed the whole document, must be seen through the prism of the core content policies including WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR (including the sections WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE) which are already mentioned at the top of the page.

I hope that that helps and I am sorry for not being more explicit at the time of closure. Having said that, I would have no concerns if you were to request a closure review. Gusfriend (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

While that is a slight improvement, as it refers back to the core content policies, as an editor who was involved in the RfC discussion it does not seem like a full description of the discussion.

Unfortunately I'm recovering from laser eye surgery (pew pew, alas no x-ray vision) at the moment, so my screen time is limited. Could you please self-request a closure review at a WP:AN? I think given the ramifications of changing this policy and how its interpreted, and the impact it will have on the many BLPs across enwiki, closure of that RfC ideally should be done by an uninvolved administrator. Or someone intimately familiar with all of the core policies involved and how those are broadly interpreted and agreed upon by the community at large. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Write a article about (A.I.G)

Hi i wanna ask for help to write and publish a article about the Threat group Atlas Intelligence group.

we would appreciate any help. 2A0A:A546:E4D6:0:F91C:DC22:5A73:C150 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)