User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2023/October

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Contentious topic designation removed
Hello ,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Your revert of my close of Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
Hi,

You reverted my close of the RfC you started stating that "premature – it's been less than a week. Please let it run the full month as both Yes and No votes are still coming in, and it will have more legitimacy if it's closed by a neutral party. Thanks".

I invite you to read WP:RFCEND which states that "Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that. If one of the reasons to end RFCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course."

One of the points listed under the heading "Reasons and ways to end RFCs" is point 4 "Any uninvolved editor can post a closing summary of the discussion; if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion. The editor removes the tag while closing the discussion."

Given there is clear consensus against your proposal a week is more than sufficient for a close given Wikipedia policy. The mess you've made re-listing this, as if it is a new RfC started on 3 October 2023 is unacceptable. I invite you to close the RfC in the manner described at WP:RFCEND at point 4, given that at the time of my close there were 16 votes against your proposal and 8 for and that the RfC had run for 7 hours short of a week which was sufficient time for it to run.

Pinging @Redrose64 as the admin who cleaned up the mess of the RfC being incorrectly re-listed. TarnishedPathtalk 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The point of an RfC is to bring in views from the wider community, to see whether local consensus is representative of wider community consensus. That requires a bit of time. Last I looked, the four most recent contributions all went against what you describe as the "consensus" – so the matter is far from settled.
 * Also, as someone really invested in the result, you should not have attempted to close the RfC prematurely, without any discussion. Just trust the community process to come to the right decision. I will call for an admin at AN to close the RfC once it has run its course. Regards,  Andreas  JN 466 23:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to read to the wikipedia policy I referred you to? It is irrelevant if I'm involved or not. Concensus was overwhelming and clear. In that situation the policy dictates that any editor, involved or not may close and summarise. Again, i invite you to close this. TarnishedPathtalk 00:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing an RfC when involved is not a good idea, and it was a bit soon. Considering this is a WP:CT an admin close might be best. I'd advise dropping this. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage the votes are clear and overwhelming. Per Wiki policy in such situation it is not required nor desirable to go 30 days. Wiki policy specifically councils to close prior to the bot removing the template when consensus is overwhelmingly clear. TarnishedPathtalk 06:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed citation info
Hi. I'm wondering why you removed citation info in the following edit, including switching some to bare URLs. Was that a mistake? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1179766360 Nurg (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nurg Thanks, that totally was a mistake. Mishandled edit conflict. Really odd, because I was in VE mode and doing a section edit. Regards, Andreas JN 466 09:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I think someone fixed it, so all good. Nurg (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * }

The Signpost: 23 October 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)