This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:slakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ludovic Lepic - Chaos.jpg slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable.
Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =)
zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!!banana?kiwi?



Nuvola apps important blue.svg Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Comment

Regarding slakr:

Regarding SineBot:

SineBot qry[edit]

forget-me-not :)

Hiya. Fantastic tool you wrote SineBot. Of course, it goes down for maintenance or whatever from time to time, so an unsigned comment may be missed.

But I came across 2 successive comments on Talk:Porthmadog posted on diff. days, that were unsigned. (Actually, I've used {{tl:unsigned}} on them just now, which admittedly confuses my point!)

However, would you say it's just coincidence that 2 users on the same page [had] remained unsigned?

Pardon my curiosity! Trafford09 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you're a busy person, but I've added a floral gift :)
Trafford09 (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
After all, there is no deadline. Trafford09 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rebel Pundit[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rebel Pundit. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrew the DR as endorse was clear consensus. Sorry to read about your surgery. Hope you feel better. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: Oh lol... sorry, yeah... I'm sorta all over the place at the moment, but am gradually feeling better. :D By the way, I agree that the article's of questionable notability, at best (and tbh I'd also be inclined to !vote delete if I had joined the discussion), but I was more just neutrally patrolling the AfD backlog to close a bunch of wayyy old stuff. Usually the ones I end up having to deal with (as far as AfD goes) are all part of the backlog and therefore tend to be the more difficult closes nobody else wants to deal with. In some instances margins like that don't matter (e.g., something that's a BLP issue, a predominating-policy-overriding-a-guideline issue, or clearly discardable/inaccurate arguments can simply be closed for what they are, because I can confidently predict the people at DRV will obviously agree if it's raised there or if someone screams zOMG adminz abuse/cabalz!), but this one was more subjective and had low levels of input, so I erred on the side of caution. I'd say just re-nominate it in a few months and there'll likely be more and clearer input. It also looks like a chunk of the sources are kind of one-event-y, too, so you might also mention that next time (i.e., "is the event most of the article is based on even notable itself? Is it enough to truly make the site notable?"). *shrug*. Schools are out of session in North America, and people tend to take vacations in the summer, so participation in the various community areas (including AFD) dwindles and makes things like this happen. :\ Sorry for any frustration (and delay in response). Cheers. =) --slakrtalk / 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion issue[edit]

Hello. Can you please review your decision at this discussion since no consensus was present at the time of deletion? I was collecting more reliable sources (as suggested) and wanted to include those into the article. I believe the deletion was made too early in the discussion. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; had surgery. I closed it as a "soft" deletion (due to lack of substantial turnout or opposition, as you noted). You can get it WP:UNDELETEed speedily if you'd like. --slakrtalk / 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hastert[edit]

Hi Slakr. Per WP:RFC, "RfC may be extended beyond 30 days by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date." That was not done for the Hastert RFC, so it was not extended beyond 30 days. So was it necessary to close it, and to add a closing statement?

In any event, while the closing statement is correct as far as it goes, it does not address the strength of the opposing policy-based arguments, which is necessary to determine consensus. That is, WP:Consensus says that, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."

So, I would suggest undoing the close. But if you think a close is appropriate, then please address the quality of the arguments. I'd prefer undoing the close, because I deliberately did not try to extend it by modifying the time stamp (I can explain why if you want).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It's been 10 days since there was any additional input, and there was an open request for closure. In this case, it actually is more the quantity of the argument, in large part because you narrowly framed the question. The question of whether to include it at all in the lead is the main significant secondary issue which would have weight, but the way you phrased the RFC's question mainly framed the choice as (and coaxed input in the form of) "abuse" or "sexual abuse," so the result inevitably would likely (and did) yield one or the other, so long as there was enough agreement for one or the other (and there was—just not the one you wanted). I do feel it might be appropriate to run a follow-up RFC of sorts to determine whether a mere allegation should even be mentioned in the lead at all (and/or for possibly a generalized trimming and re-structuring of the lead), because several people did mention, despite the forced choice, that it might not be appropriate to mention mere allegations in the lead in the first place if they're disproportionate / UNDUE (whereas those !voting aren't explicitly saying "yes, this must be in the lead; no it's not UNDUE; AND, here's my choice."). That's really more the additional point of clarification, and that's why the close for the narrow question is itself fairly narrow (again, since I feel it would be an over-reach to imply that, based on the discussion, there's inherently consensus solidifying agreement to include it in the lead in the first place). --slakrtalk / 03:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was thinking about a followup RFC to see about just getting rid of the whole last paragraph of the lead, especially given that news coverage dropped off quite a bit. It's obviously a difficult subject, but worth making sure it's done right, so your reply is much appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. Thank you for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC! Would you consider adding your extended explanation above to your close at Talk:Dennis Hastert#RfC: Should the lead mention that there were allegations of sexual abuse? so that the RfC participants are aware of your thoughts? Cunard (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

DFW Amon Carter Edit-a-thon[edit]

You're getting this because you're listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth and have some fairly recent edits in your contribution history.

If you're still in the DFW area you might want to keep your eye on this and consider participating:

Amon Carter Museum edit-a-thon

I've volunteered to serve as their editing assistant / technical advisor to help the folks who show up (many of which are apparently going to be Wikpedia newcomers) with how to edit. More experienced hands would certainly be useful if this project gels. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)

SineBot's dead[edit]

SineBot hasn't edited in over a week. Mind checking it out? --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Back now. --slakrtalk / 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)