User talk:ATS/Archive 5

Your GA nomination of Isa Briones
The article Isa Briones you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isa Briones for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Billiestan123 -- Billiestan123 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thanks to for the review. ATS (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 🖖🏻

Pic
Hi ATS: Just to let you know, I removed the "pictured" from your hook because Isa's pic is not the one scheduled to run with this batch. Unfortunately, we can only run one pic with 8 hooks! MeegsC (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that was the reason I reverted myself on the prep page. —ATS (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Isa Briones
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! —ATS (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Isa Briones
So, GNL means nothing? The fact that it was "actor" to begin with before someone decided to change it means nothing? Weak consensus my arse—the original text should be kept in that event given that, by your own admission, "actress should not be auto-reverted"? Did you not just violate this by "reverting" to the revert? —ATS (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I'm going to try to WP:AGF and treat this merely as a request for clarification, and try to respond to your questions.
 * GNL is an essay. I gave weight to many things in the closure, as I noted.
 * The first edit] used "actress". And in looking over the edit history of the page, I think one could pretty easily come to the conclusion that you contributed to the article's lack of stability concerning actor/actress. - jc37 03:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * speaking of AGF ... that was wholly unnecessary. You suggest I contributed to the article's instability by using its creation edit? As opposed to, say, when GA status was to a stable article that wasn't  in proven bad faith for another 11 days? Bollocks. —ATS (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify: In response to your assertion "The fact that it was "actor" to begin with before someone decided to change it means nothing?", I merely pointed out what the first "before" was. (It wasn't ..."'actor' to begin with...".) - jc37 04:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you literally could not be interpeting this more poorly; the locus is last stable version, not first version—and the article would never have been granted GA status unless it was stable. No disrespect intended, but I believe we need to consult a sysop with more experience. Perhaps would like to weigh in? —ATS (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are conflating my words to try to mean something I did not say. I am disinterested in a debate. If you wish to contest the close, please feel free to take it before the community at WP:AN. - jc37 05:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not contest the close; I contest the "reversion" to the first unstable edit. Revert yourself or I will. —ATS (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * per the edit summary, that edit was per the close. It was not a revert action. If you revert, it will be contrary to a consensual discussion. Again, if you don't like the close, please feel free to go to WP:AN. - jc37 05:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is unfortunate from start to finish.

As noted on the article talk and by at AN, this close is flat-out wrong. If there is a "winner" of the !vote, it is incontrovertibly C.

The above "sysop" to "try to WP:AGF" and immediately turns to WP:ABF with I think one could pretty easily come to the conclusion that you contributed to the article's lack of stability concerning actor/actress (as opposed to removing a bad-faith editor's demonstrably false edits, as  on the article talk).

In addition, this individual then by claiming falsely that I am clearly not happy that [my] preferred version does not appear on the page (as opposed to, say, the correct version), and that I shifted through [my] comments to apparently try to create a straw man argument (as opposed to clarifying the alleged "sysop"'s erroneous assumption that by "to begin with" I must have been referring to the first version of the article, rather than the first stable version upon GA award—a textbook example of reading comprehension gone irredeemably wrong).

I humbly request that the above "sysop" be taken out back, slapped into submission with a wet trout, and scheduled for remedial training.

—ATS (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Isa Briones
So, GNL means nothing? The fact that it was "actor" to begin with before someone decided to change it means nothing? Weak consensus my arse—the original text should be kept in that event given that, by your own admission, "actress should not be auto-reverted"? Did you not just violate this by "reverting" to the revert? —ATS (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I'm going to try to WP:AGF and treat this merely as a request for clarification, and try to respond to your questions.
 * GNL is an essay. I gave weight to many things in the closure, as I noted.
 * The first edit] used "actress". And in looking over the edit history of the page, I think one could pretty easily come to the conclusion that you contributed to the article's lack of stability concerning actor/actress. - jc37 03:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * speaking of AGF ... that was wholly unnecessary. You suggest I contributed to the article's instability by using its creation edit? As opposed to, say, when GA status was to a stable article that wasn't  in proven bad faith for another 11 days? Bollocks. —ATS (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify: In response to your assertion "The fact that it was "actor" to begin with before someone decided to change it means nothing?", I merely pointed out what the first "before" was. (It wasn't ..."'actor' to begin with...".) - jc37 04:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you literally could not be interpeting this more poorly; the locus is last stable version, not first version—and the article would never have been granted GA status unless it was stable. No disrespect intended, but I believe we need to consult a sysop with more experience. Perhaps would like to weigh in? —ATS (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are conflating my words to try to mean something I did not say. I am disinterested in a debate. If you wish to contest the close, please feel free to take it before the community at WP:AN. - jc37 05:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not contest the close; I contest the "reversion" to the first unstable edit. Revert yourself or I will. —ATS (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * per the edit summary, that edit was per the close. It was not a revert action. If you revert, it will be contrary to a consensual discussion. Again, if you don't like the close, please feel free to go to WP:AN. - jc37 05:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is unfortunate from start to finish.

As noted on the article talk and by at AN, this close is flat-out wrong. If there is a "winner" of the !vote, it is incontrovertibly C.

The above "sysop" to "try to WP:AGF" and immediately turns to WP:ABF with I think one could pretty easily come to the conclusion that you contributed to the article's lack of stability concerning actor/actress (as opposed to removing a bad-faith editor's demonstrably false edits, as  on the article talk).

In addition, this individual then by claiming falsely that I am clearly not happy that [my] preferred version does not appear on the page (as opposed to, say, the correct version), and that I shifted through [my] comments to apparently try to create a straw man argument (as opposed to clarifying the alleged "sysop"'s erroneous assumption that by "to begin with" I must have been referring to the first version of the article, rather than the first stable version upon GA award—a textbook example of reading comprehension gone irredeemably wrong).

I humbly request that the above "sysop" be taken out back, slapped into submission with a wet trout, and scheduled for remedial training.

—ATS (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)