User talk:Mrjulesd

Welcome to the Mrjulesd user talk page! Feel free to message me about anything you like. Here are some suggestions for use:

Archives

Archive 1

Please continue any conversations on the talk page where it was started, I should have it on watch. But you could also leave a {{Talkback}} template here if you want to be sure I've seen it. Or else use {{Reply to}}, although it is not always reliable.
To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link, or manually add a new heading and message at the bottom of the page.
Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading:

Add to the bottom of conversations. Indent your message when replying, by using an appropriate number of colons (:).
Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

You should sign your messages. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Most messages are archived, although I reserve the right to discard aggressive or trolling posts.
See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for further advice.

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your readdition of the contentious material on Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Please read WP:STATUSQUO. From that you will see: During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns. We are in a dispute. Check. We don't have consensus (that's what we are discussing), so the status quo reigns. And that status quo is not including the "also known as" text. If you can't accept that, please refrain from continuing to edit on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 year of the reader and peace

Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical (and health)

Sorry that I didn't make it clear enough. Basically, I didn't ignore those votes, but I gave them less weight. See the "Deletion, moving and featuring" section of WP:POLL — when you merely vote, or when you say essentially "I like this better" without specifying why your preference for this should translate into a better Wikipedia, or "It's clear to me" without explaining why it should also be clearer to others, you've really not helped make a decision as to which one is better for readers and editors as a whole, and when you merely say "I agree with X" without explaining why you agree, you're not attempting to add further evidence for why you and X should carry the day. Even something like "I agree with X, whose argument makes sense because of [insert relevant reason here]" is solid, because you're providing reasoning for why the vote makes sense, unlike "I agree with X".

Finally, you ask whether I discounted those votes: the answer is "not totally". While they should get a lot less weight, votes shouldn't be totally ignored as long as they're reasonably accurate and made in good faith. A closer should reward votestacking attempts (especially with sockpuppets) by discounting them completely, and fundamentally inaccurate votes should be ignored because they don't have a basis in reality (e.g. at AFD "Keep. Here's a news report about this medical discovery that was announced yesterday, and it wasn't written by one of the researchers, so it's a secondary source! Example, 20:17, 31 December 2015" and "Keep per User:Example. ThisIsaTest, 21:17, 31 December 2015"), but mere votes offered in good faith should still be considered somewhat, because they still help demonstrate the opinions of members of the community.

If I didn't answer you fully, please come back to remind me what I forgot to address. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend: I reference to [1], which referenced [2]well I don't really agree with your analysis. If you say "per Joe Bloggs", and Joe Bloggs has made particularly strong arguments, why should you have to repeat the arguments causing a wall of text? They've made strong arguments, and in the name of brevity instead of merely repeating those arguments you've chosen to reference them, it increases the clarity of the thread, and is actually beneficial. Now if Joe Bloggs didn't make strong arguments, I could understand, but this does not seem to be the case. And there seems to be no policy of guidelines which discourage "per somebody" !votes.

Overall I'm not really happy with the closure. I think at the very least it should have been "no consensus", and your end comments I found unsatisfactory. Is there any way to appeal this decision? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you merely say "per Joe Bloggs", you have contributed nothing to the discussion: you've only added a vote. As I already noted, you don't have to repeat the arguments and cause a wall of text: you can say "Support per Joe Bloggs. He's right because of X". See the heavily-supported and highly-regarded WP:NOTAVOTE essay, which rejects a heavy reliance on votes. I mean, if you want, I could change the close to "no consensus was arrived here, and closing as failure per WP:CONLIMITED" [the bit I already noted about the venue not attracting people who write about bicycles, seat belts, etc.), but the result would be the same. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:. I would like to make the following points:

(a) I have read the WP:NOTAVOTE essay, but it fails to mention "per somebody" type votes, so does not help particularly.

(b) I would prefer if you re-closed it as "no consensus". I think it might be significant if people argued that a topic was health and non biomedical, a no-consensus result would give their arguments less weight.

(c) I think I might bring up this up "per somebody" type !votes at the village pump for discussion, to see how others view these !votes. If less credence is going to be given to them then people should be forewarned, as they are commonplace and extremely logical, at least to me.

RSVP. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely will not modify my own close decision in order to weaken any specific position: such would be drastically wrong. Since such is your position, this is my final response. I leave you with the words of a small part of NOTAVOTE, to answer your other question about votes that merely support someone else's position without offering any reasoning for that support: "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend::

(a) You say I absolutely will not modify my own close decision in order to weaken any specific position, but earlier you said I mean, if you want, I could change the close to "no consensus was arrived here, and closing as failure per WP:CONLIMITED". You are not being consistent.

(b)You also say "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. But I would argue that "per somebody" votes do carry considerable reasoning, as they use the reasoning that previous participants have put forward.

Look I think I may bring this for further discussion, as these sort of decisions need be discussed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You had not yet revealed that you were asking for a different close for the purpose of weakening one side: closes must reflect consensus, rather than being twisted to fit someone's agenda. Should you request review without explicitly stating that you're just trying to get the other side to look bad, sanctions will be requested. Meanwhile, just go to AFD and try leaving "per nom" or "per [name]" votes; since I was new here, they've always been treated that way. Nyttend (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: No I also believe that a "no consensus" !vote is much closer to what happened. Can you honestly say that the RfC had consensus to exclude health? And if "per somebody" !votes are commonly discounted then this needs to be discussed IMO. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Mrjulesd!

Happy New Year!

Mrjulesd,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.