User talk:Bdushaw/Archive4

Trump
You are making good contributions at the Donald Trump article. Your recent copyedit of the consensus text was well done. In your summary of events, you seemed to be reversing the chronology of the 3 proposals vs. Awilley's alphabet thing. The proposals came first and the consensus for #3 was clear before Awilley arrived. The subsequent process with the !votes and 's table confirmed the obvious.

At this point, given the ongoing efforts to keep Covid out of the lead, I'm afraid your only recourse is to request a close at AN and take it from there. The close might be challenged, and if that fails, yet another RfC might be attempted. But before the behavioral issues on that page can be properly addressed, it's necessary first to work through all available channels so that the disruptive behavior is not enabled as a "content dispute" -- which is always the most comfortable stance for Admins when faced with difficult cases.

Yes it is frustrating, but that is the nature of the beast. The politics articles improve at their own pace, and eventually we get them pretty much right. Thanks for your participation.  SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've have already requested a formal close of the discussion. I have no idea when it might occur. - MrX 🖋 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my oversight. I think it's best to let it lie. The article section is in pretty good shape, and the Trump sub-articles are also well written. There's plenty of coverage of Trump/Covid on various pages regardless of whether this lead bit is suppressed. Admins, like the rest of us are volunteers, and eventually they too get it right.  SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've been mostly unaware of the disruptors, being new, but beginning to recognize certain counterproductive efforts. I think it is bad form to allow those that would disrupt the process to interfere with basic Wikipedia processes. Bdushaw (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting archive action
An archive action involves two edits, one to the talk page and another to the archive page. Please don't revert the former without also reverting the latter, as that will ultimately leave the archive with two versions of the same discussion(s). I have fixed this instance. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  06:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump
You're edit warring the virus/election bit. You could be blocked or TBANNED at any moment. Please stand back. I suggest you self-revert your reinsertion of the challenged edit and continue your constructive discussion on talk. Don't die on this hill. Good luck.  SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear you...but I don't think that's true, per 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. Its been 24 hours, I seriously considered the comments, and I stated my own views...  I view the objections as lacking substance, as I say on the Talk page.  (But it does, for me, end here!) Bdushaw (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The 24-hour BRD think has been kind of a bust. My impression is that even its sponsor, is always trying to find better or different page restrictions that might be more effective. But frankly, waiting until 25 hours or posting on the talk page without resolution only to undo the reversion is not a good look, regardless of the letter of the law. I doubt you'll get consensus for your view on this particular point. Most editors are increasingly critical due to the length of the article and IMO your suggested content is too subjective anyway. I suggest you wait and see whetether anyone joins to endorse your proposal. It's a widely followed page, so you needn't be concerned that you will not be heard.  SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bdushaw, at a minimum you should be making concessions to the objections of User:theGEIKOgekko and User:Mandruss who both say the material is too long and too much detail. So far you seem to be the only one advocating its inclusion. Looking at the material myself I'd say it could be easily condensed into 1-2 sentences max and maybe put somewhere other than its own subsection. And the subsection heading doesn't need to redundantly refer to Trump (the article's subject) and the main section header (pandemic). so "Effect of Trump's pandemic response on the 2020 presidential campaign" becomes "Effect on 2020 presidential campaign" ~Awilley (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion. A one-sentence adddition of election strategy to the long Covid section would make the point without unduly burdening the narrative or the article size.  SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)