User talk:Enterprisey/talk-sandbox

From Wikipedia!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Test[edit]

test Enterprisey (talk!) 10:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

re Enterprisey (talk!) 10:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
re Enterprisey (talk!) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
re — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohrobinreally (talkcontribs) 02:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Atsme[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I consider Atsme a friend, and as such INVOLVED with her, so I am recusing on this even though I placed the original sanctions on the article. Also, a note that it is technically under BLP sanctions, not AP2, though if that is causing confusion and there is consensus here to move it to AP2, I have no objection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that Roy Moore, and specifically the recent controversy around sexual abuse allegations, fall under the Donald Trump topic if broadly construed, given that Trump has repeatedly inserted himself into the controversy. That being said, this is also a thoroughly unimpressive contribution from Atsme. I'm seeing a clear battleground mentality from both participants here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
  • Oh, I disagree that Moore falls under any Trump-ban construction--such a construction is so broad that anything Trump has tweeted about or mentioned in passing would be covered, which is just about anything. One could argue that given the Access Hollywood tape the female anatomy or lifestyles of the rich and infamous would be covered by such a topic ban. Masem, sorry, but we have a spin-off article because a. no one follows NOTNEWS and b. there's a ton of coverage and it's a Big Deal. One doesn't always need Trump to make something a Big Deal... "Strongly linked by the media", I don't know what that means: is this a post-truth construction of reality? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As Tony points out, the article was placed under BLP sanctions, not AP2 or DT sanctions. On the other hand, the DS entry does not bar VM from making edits related to Donald Trump, it bans them Template:Xt (emphasis added). Broadly construed, this includes all articles about subjects that are usually mentioned in connection with Donald Trump and this does imho apply to Roy Moore's sexual abuse allegations because Trump has injected himself into that scandal multiple times. So I'd be willing to AGF that Atsme thought so as well when she reverted VM for what appeared to her as a ban violation (note that she did not reinstate the edit when another editor challenged it). Her behavior afterwards however is, as Lankiveil points out, problematic. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I recommend closing this with a warning to both Volunteer Marek (for violating their Trump topic ban, which arguably encompasses a politician opposed or, as here, supported by Trump); and to Atsme for battleground attitude and editing in violation of the "consensus required" restriction. The conduct reported here doesn't strike me as sufficiently serious to warrant other sanctions on either side. Sandstein 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies that I have been rather absent over the past couple of days. Actually I only looked in to look up some 1st-century-BC Roman politician and my notifications had gone a bit mad. I don't have time to look into the rights and wrongs of this right now, but I'll make a few points:
    • I stuffed up imposing the topic bans referred to a bit. The close at AE includes the 'broadly construed' language and the log/notifications do not include it. My bad. The intention was 'broadly construed' but now individual admins enforcing the sanction will have to take a view on whether particular edits are a violation or not.
    • I would tend to agree with VM that non-Trump-related edits to Roy Moore and related articles are not a violation, though perhaps it's feeling somewhat close to the edge. If you're going to construe a topic ban that widely then it seems to me it's effectively a ban from all current American politics (and any historical American politics Trump happens to have commented on). If I'd meant to do that, I'd have done it and I didn't.
    • Someone will inevitably bring up my recent block of James J. Lambden for violation of the same ban. The page involved there is about an organisation which was probably formed solely to support Donald Trump (though they're now trying to broaden their interests). That makes the page Trump-related. Roy Moore is a politician in his own right with his own political campaign and his own political problems; he is not so tightly connected to Donald Trump that any edit is necessarily Trump-related, though obviously some edits may still be.
    • I had already made this explanation to Atsme at my talk page some seven hours before the edits in question, so the explanation that they thought they were reverting edits by a banned editor is a bit thin. The example used in my explanation was a different page (Sean Hannity) but the principle is the same.
    • I haven't time to look through the history of this now, but my immediate gut reaction is that Sandstein is roughly on the money. GoldenRing (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm good with doing as Sandstein has suggested. General edits on Roy Moore that pertain to things that predate this current run for Senate are probably not under the scope, but given that Trump is a major player in the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, I can't see how it would not be under that scope. Trouts all around I would say. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

Testing reply going in wrong place[edit]

test1 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

re2 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
re3 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

test4 Enterprisey (talk!) 03:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

test5 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
re6 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
re7 Enterprisey (talk!) 10:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
And again (for tracking purposes): here. Maybe it's also bad at replying to the last statement on a page? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. In the first diff I gave the reply was in the penultimate section. There's a real problem with the relist template, and it may be related to the other problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay so I just about was going to say no..yet I tried to reply to you and I replied to myself.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to wrong user[edit]

In a recent AE case, I wanted to reply to a comment made by Sandstein in the section "Result concerning Atsme". Instead, the script added the reply to Masem's comment above. I have no idea why... Regards SoWhy 13:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me here - in both the reply appeared inside a closed discussion instead of where it should be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
More weirdness Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 and more Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC) 
Oh wait, this one is just me being an idiot and not putting the correct amount of tildes Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Again reply going in the wrong place Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright, good to know! I'm really swamped IRL for the next week or so, but I should be able to fix this after that. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it has a problem with the relist template - for some reason it wants to put the reply inside it instead of where it should be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And again (for tracking purposes): here. Maybe it's also bad at replying to the last statement on a page? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. In the first diff I gave the reply was in the penultimate section. There's a real problem with the relist template, and it may be related to the other problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay so I just about was going to say no..yet I tried to reply to you and I replied to myself.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:04:21, 7 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ohrobinreally[edit]

Hi, I hope I'm replying correctly. Thank you for your feedback tonight. I would like to continue editing the page, so I have a question or two. Can I go to bed before opening the document for editing? I know that's dumb but Wikipedia has a kazillion rules, and I'm trying to learn and obey them all. The second question is why didn't the links populate in the reference section? I recalled after I hit published that I'd not submitted the subject's official website or created an infobox. Guess I need to go back to Wiki school. Again, thank you for any help you can provide. ~ Robin Ohrobinreally (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@TESTTESTOhrobinreally: Hello, First of all welcome to Wikipedia. Here are the answers to your questioins. 1) Yes, you can. It's upto you. 2) You should see referencing for begineers. There are alot of videos and manual about referencing on that link, I also provided that link in decline reason. If you need more help feel free to contact. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the welcome. I did go to bed and have resolved to learn this thing because I love it. Thank you for being patient and kind. I made changes today. Let's see what happens. Hope you're well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohrobinreally (talkcontribs) 02:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)