User talk:CycloneYoris/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

→

This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2023)

Belgian waffles cooked in a Krampouz cast-iron waffle iron, in a Montreal restaurant during the gastronomy competition of the Montreal Highlights Festival

Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Waffle iron

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: The Sims (video game) • Brochure

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Like a Dragon: Ishin! on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Well...

...I was about to do the same edit you did, but with the following edit summary: "see WP:TPO ... doing that makes it seem as though CycloneYoris is responding to themselves - consider enclosing your comment in <s></s> html tags" ... and whaddya know, you said basically the same thing. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Yeah, I guess removing it would've been fine if I hadn't responded to them, but in this case it simply wasn't the best idea lol. :) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2023)

Campaign for the Norwegian Centre Party at Nærbø: like its Finnish and Swedish counterparts, the party has a strong focus on decentralisation, rural and agrarian issues. Ideologically, the Centre Party is positioned in the centre on the political spectrum.

Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Centrism

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Waffle iron • The Sims (video game)

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2023)

Textbooks

Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Textbook

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Centrism • Waffle iron

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

Featured content: Eden, lost.

Gallery: Love is in the air

Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2023)

Greenland is the world's largest island.

Hello, CycloneYoris. The article for improvement of the week is:

Island

Please be bold and help improve it!

Previous selections: Textbook • Centrism

Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions

Wikipedia:AI

I don't think there was consensus to retarget. Let me know what you think. Jay 💬 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jay: Almost everyone that participated in that RfD is in favor of the nom's retarget proposal (except for you and Crouch, Swale). So, I do see a clear consensus for retargeting. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by clear consensus? Other than "Support per above" and "justifiable target", what arguments did you find in favour of the retarget? What opposition did you see for the pageviews arguments in determining the primary topic? Jay 💬 09:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jay: The question here is: What arguments did you NOT find in favor of the retarget? As I said above, almost every single participant is supporting the nom's proposal; and the fact that you are inquiring me about this is honestly baffling and borderline offensive, to say the least. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As you have not provided a rationale for the close, I am trying to understand it. Why do you find contesting of a decision offensive? You used a term "clear consensus". Can you define it, or describe what it means to you? How does it matter how many participants supported the proposal, unless you are looking at a vote count? What arguments did you find in favour of the retarget? What were your thoughts about the disambiguation suggestion and opposition to the retarget? Jay 💬 08:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jay: I'm finding it hard to comprehend why you've come to my talk page in such a patronizing manner when clearly I've done nothing wrong! As I've repeatedly said in this thread, there is a clear and almost unanimous consensus for retargeting, and I'm not sure why you're seemingly pretending that there isn't? I honestly have nothing else to add, consensus is clear enough, as there are more support !votes that one can count. The proposal to disambiguate did not gain enough support, or else I would've relisted. I also didn't feel the need to add a closing rationale, as everything seemed quite clear in my opinion. Any other editor would've closed that RfD with the exact same result, so I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this? Also, if you're so dissatisfied with the current result then you always have the option to renominate; since it wasn't a deletion proposal, then there's nothing stopping you from immediately renominating the same redirect. If that's what you wish to do so, then go ahead! I've now made myself clear, and will not respond to any further inquiries on this matter. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You made a close, and I came to your talk page to ask about it. I do not know why you have taken it personally (I've done nothing wrong), or chose to target me back rather than answer the questions about the close or adding a closing summary. See WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures which says contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. For your suggestion of renominating it immediately, closed RfDs are not renominated immediately unless the new nomination rationale is sufficiently different from the previous, or there has been a change in target, or changes at the target, rendering the previous close redundant. In this case, the next step would be request review at the Administrators' noticeboard, since you are not willing to respond further. Jay 💬 07:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if a third party's input will actually help anything at this point, but for what it's worth: Jay, I agree with CycloneYoris that the consensus is rather obvious on this one. Six people (including nom) wanted to retarget to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence, arguing that AI is normally an abbreviation for artificial intelligence and where someone would expect to land. You argued that Wikipedia:Article incubator is historically the more important page, which is a sound argument but, with the arguments on both sides being valid, not even close to overcoming the fact that your position was outvoted 3:1 (a huge margin by WP standards).

On the other hand: CycloneYoris, I am not sure why you found it offensive that someone came here to ask about your close. Wikipedia runs on discussion, and when someone finds something unclear, it is natural that they ask about it. If you intend to close discussions regularly, it will inevitably happen that someone disagrees with you and asks about it. Editors disagree constantly on everything, and this in know way implies anything about their opinions of each other's wisdom or intelligence. Jay's choice to begin this thread with: "I disagree with you, please explain" was not especially tactful but also not really uncivil, and, respectfully, I think your reaction was not appropriate. I'm not trying to attack you or anything; I just want to point out that I think you crossed a line (we all do that sometimes and need to be corrected; in my case, not even three weeks ago) and encourage you to temper your reactions a little bit.

I hope that input helps. Best wishes to you both. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Thank you for your input! I agree that my approach to this situation wasn't the best, and in hindsight, I now realize that I did overreact and should have dealt with things in a more neutral and appropriate way. I simply felt overwhelmed by the amount of questions that Jay was asking, which I felt were unwarranted for such an uncontroversial close (not to say that their questions weren't valid, but I simply didn't understand why they were asking so much, as if consensus wasn't clear enough). I truly appreciate your input and advice, and I'll try my best to temper my reactions from now on (as I've always done in the past). Best wishes to you too! CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)