User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2020/June

New message from Whpq

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whpq (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Duh

Duh. Thank you. But I hesitate before adding ~~~~, because even before the current pestilence I wasn't into reaching out and touching people. Oh well, your page, your rules [deep breath] Hoary (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I've done something similar myself before, and appreciated it being pointed out.

Perhaps it really is the time to change that user talk header of mine a bit to bring into the 21st century since the AT&T ad campaign it alludes to (or at least attempts to allude to) is probably too old for most people to make the desired connection anymore, and just seems a bit creepy. There's such a fine between stupid and clever, and the expiration date on trying to be clever seems much more shorter these days. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New message from Bagumba

Hello, Marchjuly. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 09:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oldschool talkback. Forgot to ping you in response. —Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK WP:CANVAS

Konnichiwa Marchjuly. In deciding which user page was appropriate to discuss your edit, being mindful of WP:OWNTALK, here is best given you have not started a section on my user talk page and therefore are not watching it.

Regarding your edit of 21:03 25 June 2020 (UTC) at User talk:Explicit#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25, I'd like to say I appreciate your interest as it is an opportunity to discuss something important. As you infer, but is also more clearly stated at WP:CANVAS, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Notification, as opposed to canvassing, is defined by WP:CANVAS as notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. An invitation to contribute is therefore distinct from a recommendation to participate in a particular way (i.e. block voting, although you would be aware consensus outcomes are not based on simple numerical polling, but rather based on the quality of the contributions made in terms of their content and not on irrelevant factors such as who made them, etc).

WP:APPNOTE specifically allows for notification to be made on the user talk pages of editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic and/or are known for expertise. And while there may be an assumption that those who participated in a previous consensus to retain the image (now being proposed again for deletion by the same editor, on the same file, only days after), I sent invitation to more editors (noting that a wider participation may address the particular viewpoint of the repeat deletion editor, who may have felt the earlier consensus was too small a sample [although, comparatively, it wasn't, but it is about seeking to give assurance to that editor, if that was indeed the case]) who I had no expectation or indication of what view they might likely have (nor could I assume just because an editor who may supported its retention previously would maintain the same opinion, given the scope of the objection made by the original editor was widened to another ground). WP:APPNOTE would therefore be larger in scope than you have suggested (inferring that individual notification was not allowed).

As you may be aware, some noticeboards get very little traffic, especially the maintenance types ones like the one in question. This often leads to poor outcomes where participation is limited to just one or two individuals and fails to provide any real community consensus. This is why WP:APPNOTE allows for the methods of notice used, so it's not just the same clique of individuals creating some false equivalence of community consensus.

Similarly, there is nothing in WP:CAN regarding thanking those invited for participating exists (directly or indirectly), as you have inferred, so I can only interpret this to be a personal viewpoint. I would agree however it would be somewhat tacky to thank invitees selectively for contributing only if they agreed with requestor, although it would make no change to what an editor has already done. Be assured however I am thanking all who participate regardless of their choice (as it is the increase in participation that I am encouraging, not what they decide - that is a matter for them). Acknowledging the contribution and time of editors on what are often thankless maintenance tasks is inherent in WP:CIV and shouldn't really be inferred as motivated by other purposes.

However, if this personal viewpoint is something you think should be part of the guidelines, do start a RfC on the WP:CAN talk page and develop a formal consensus on it. I would certainly participate in that if you want to get the ball rolling.

Regarding your claim that I had "declared" a consensus, please be careful of straying (even if with inferred good intent) into WP:PA WP:AVOIDYOU WP:RPA (See ArbComm examples at WP:ASPERSIONS) with wording that is directed more towards an editor than their edits (using quotes inappropriately for example can come across as pejorative). Again, given the absence of guideline reference in that commentary, it appears to represent a personal viewpoint rather than community consensus. This might another area, if you are interested in developing some formal policy, to put to RfC. Again, that too is something I would be interested in participating in if you decide to do this. In good faith, once a decision was made by an uninvolved administrator (who made that decision on the consensus he determined existed), the discussion closed and it was appropriate that be reflected as otherwise it may have caused confusion (especially given this current deletion proposal is not identical to the previous, even if it is nonetheless substantially the same). The discussion close was properly referenced, visible and it was clear I was not the one who had made the decision that consensus existed for the image to be retained. I find it unlikely any confusion could possibly be caused and the action itself was purely administrative clean-up (and not objected to by the administrator).

Thank you for your belief I acted in good-faith here, although as someone who has edited Wikipedia for longer than I've had this account, I am aware of the appropriate policies and guidelines and reviewed them before making the edits in question (as all good editors should). That said, you are my first stalker encountered (learn something new everyday) - the term sounds a little adverse but as it is self adopted by this community I guess it is all good. It is always useful to have dialogue (so long as WP:5P4 is respected, which unfortunately is not always) like this as not only does it offer the opportunity to assist fellow editors but improves understanding generally of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Domo arigatou Kangaresearch 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw your respose on Explicit's talk page and didn't feel that any further response was needed on my part. For reference, closing a discussion that you've participated in is generally not a good idea to do per WP:NACINV and WP:NACD. Was what you did the end of the world? No. Is it something that sometimes can lead to problems with others? Yes, which is why I brought it up. Same goes for the stuff I posted about WP:CANVASS. I wasn't accusing you of doing anything wrong, only just pointing out somethings that sometimes lead to problems. If you feel that's all just my personal opinion, then feel free to just ignore it.

Finally, I had no idea how long you've been editing, but your account was created only about a month of ago and that's what I was working off of. I posted my original comment in that thread for the sake of convenience because that's where your comment was, but now I know you prefer to have stuff posted on your user talk instead, then that's what I will do from now on if the nedd should arise. I'm aware of PA, ASPERSIONS, OWNTALK and all of the other stuff you linked to above, and if you feel my post strayed over the line in any of those areas, then you're free to purse things further if you like. No offense was intended by my post, I just mistaknly assumed that you might not be very familiar with some things Wikipedia and was trying to help out. Best of luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I assumed good faith so be reassured there. As is common with generalised principles based policies, where things are often framed generally rather than specifically, it is not uncommon for some variation of individual views to exist (and sometimes that can obscure specifics of the policy that aren't secondary to the generalised principles). This dialogue, in that I just didn't want to give you the impression I blew you off in terms of what you had to say, was to reflect that I took your input seriously and gave it its weight due (as well as to offer some input to assist you). I am aware of the dispute resolution procedures available to any editor, but as an exchange of views (in contrast to a challenged edit dispute), I doubt either of us see any purpose to this. Yes, most of us have no prior knowledge of other editors we encounter, which is why good faith is the default assumption by policy. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this with you, as such events do encourage review of the policies and guidelines, helping them stay current. Best of to you too. Kangaresearch 08:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)