User talk:NoonIcarus: Difference between revisions
Feedback Request Service notification on some "Politics, government, and law" request for comments (2/5 this month), a "History and geography" request for comment (1/5 this month), and . You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS. |
→Future collaboration recommendations: new section |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rfc_BFE6B8B|'''Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]], and  at [[Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#rfc_4B5F8E8|'''Talk:Battle of Bakhmut'''  on a "History and geography" request for comment]], and  at [[Talk:Israel–Hamas war#rfc_847F4A5|'''Talk:Israel–Hamas war'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 07:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rfc_BFE6B8B|'''Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]], and  at [[Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#rfc_4B5F8E8|'''Talk:Battle of Bakhmut'''  on a "History and geography" request for comment]], and  at [[Talk:Israel–Hamas war#rfc_847F4A5|'''Talk:Israel–Hamas war'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 07:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Future collaboration recommendations == |
|||
We have put each other through a lot over the past months of editing together. I have some recommendations for us both that could help with future collaboration and wanted to get your feedback on these ideas. |
|||
#'''Self-imposed use of the [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]]'s "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means":''' We both have a lot to contribute. Having our contributions removed can feel disheartening and maybe even personal sometimes. This also benefits with avoiding [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]]. All of this can be further supplemented by... |
|||
#'''Always using talk pages, not edit summaries:''' This helps in two ways; we can discuss the ''content of {{underline|additions}}'' instead of unilaterally removing contributions and it also limits us from going towards removals in order to provide an explanatory edit summary. This would be more beneficial than the [[WP:BRD|bold, revert, discuss]] method as it results in less conflict (we are not removing contributions), it allows more in-depth dialogue on concerns to additions compared to edit summaries and it provides a discussion history for future users who may have similar concerns. On talk pages, we can use [[WP:PING|ping notifications]] liberally and focus on how to word our contributions. |
|||
#'''Establishing boundaries:''' In talk page discussions, we can notify each other when a line may be being crossed. For instance, if an edit is made that one of us completely disagrees with, we can ping each other and say something like "Hey, I want to revert this because of X". Doing this allows us to recognize the concerns of one another while also distancing ourselves from reverts that have the potential to escalate into edit warring. |
|||
#'''Leave our biases behind:''' We must recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and must avoid personal biases when possible. We must establish that in controversial topics, each "side" has an opinion and voice for a particular reason. If we are to focus on one voice while minimizing the voice of another, it leads to [[WP:NPOV|neutrality issues]] and narrows the scope of information available to readers. While it is important to recognize that [[WP:VNOT|verifiability does not guarantee inclusion]], it is important to be more ''inclusive'' with notable information than exclusive on controversial topics, of course within reason. |
|||
These recommendations can be summarized as a sort of [[gentleman's agreement]], but we have to start somewhere. Let me know your thoughts on this! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:41, 21 February 2024
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! | |
Hello NoonIcarus: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this messageCAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you! This is so heartwarming. Happy New Year! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Lima Consensus
Hi NoonIcarus
First of all, a happy new year to you and wishing you a pleasant 2024 ahead. Just to note though, your move of the Lima Consensus page has been reverted, initially following a request at WP:RM/TR to revert the undiscussed bold move you had made earlier. You should therefore not reinstate that bold move, unless it is confirmed in a WP:RM discussion. It really doesn't make much difference that it's nominated at AFD, there's nothing in the guidelines that says we have to maintain an undiscussed title just because you happened to nominate the AFD during the brief time that it was at that title. Cheers, — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for the message, and Happy New Year to you too :) My last move was mostly related to Liz's rationale, who said that the title was the one under which the AfD was filed under.
- I also wanted to point out that a disambiguation probably would be beneficial in this case, and that none of the terms seem to have preponderance over one another. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Simón (2023 film)
The article Simón (2023 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Simón (2023 film) and Talk:Simón (2023 film)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
La Salida intro
Just wanted to inform you that I updated the wording in this edit since the previous version was inaccurate. There were no sources discussing "an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolutionprevalent since 1998"
, but sources were saying there was "an effort to end to the government of President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro"
, so I provided the wording of the latter. Hopefully this is an improvement and appears more neutral to you than the wording "an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro"
and we can move on from this article. Again, I'm notifying you of this edit out of good faith. WMrapids (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @WMrapids: Thanks for the notice. This looks like a fair compromise. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Simón (2023 film)
The article Simón (2023 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simón (2023 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Simón (2023 film)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of Deleting warnings without archiving and WMrapids's concerns
FYI. Just to make sure you are aware: Your editing is being discussed here: User_talk:WMrapids#Allegations_against_NoonIcarus (permalink). WMrapids mentioned the fact that you delete warnings, and I expressed a similar concern--especially when warnings are not archived. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Category:Peruvian women nurses has been nominated for renaming
Category:Peruvian women nurses has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. LadyofShalott 15:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Israel–Hamas war 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Future collaboration recommendations
We have put each other through a lot over the past months of editing together. I have some recommendations for us both that could help with future collaboration and wanted to get your feedback on these ideas.
- Self-imposed use of the interaction ban's "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means": We both have a lot to contribute. Having our contributions removed can feel disheartening and maybe even personal sometimes. This also benefits with avoiding stonewalling. All of this can be further supplemented by...
- Always using talk pages, not edit summaries: This helps in two ways; we can discuss the content of additions instead of unilaterally removing contributions and it also limits us from going towards removals in order to provide an explanatory edit summary. This would be more beneficial than the bold, revert, discuss method as it results in less conflict (we are not removing contributions), it allows more in-depth dialogue on concerns to additions compared to edit summaries and it provides a discussion history for future users who may have similar concerns. On talk pages, we can use ping notifications liberally and focus on how to word our contributions.
- Establishing boundaries: In talk page discussions, we can notify each other when a line may be being crossed. For instance, if an edit is made that one of us completely disagrees with, we can ping each other and say something like "Hey, I want to revert this because of X". Doing this allows us to recognize the concerns of one another while also distancing ourselves from reverts that have the potential to escalate into edit warring.
- Leave our biases behind: We must recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia and must avoid personal biases when possible. We must establish that in controversial topics, each "side" has an opinion and voice for a particular reason. If we are to focus on one voice while minimizing the voice of another, it leads to neutrality issues and narrows the scope of information available to readers. While it is important to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, it is important to be more inclusive with notable information than exclusive on controversial topics, of course within reason.
These recommendations can be summarized as a sort of gentleman's agreement, but we have to start somewhere. Let me know your thoughts on this! WMrapids (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)