User talk:Isanae/Archive 1

Talk:Main_Page#Proposal:_Remove_WP:In_the_news_from_the_main_page.

Please undo your closure. If you cannot close it neutrally, you shouldn't be closing it at all. Striking out part of your closng - but leavuing it to read - m,akes it clear that you should not be coming anywhere near making decisions on whether to close a discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you know what? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad_faith_closure_on_talk:Main_page

Noted. Isa (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. The point of a discussion is to make it clear the other person's wrong, not to show that In the news is some toxic environment where even asking about issues will be marked off as bad faith. It's kind of ridiculous. I expected a robust debate as to whether ITN's merits justified its flaws, instead, a whole new constelation of flaws - the toxic envionment it creates - has been revealed to me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Who?

TRM hasn't been desysopped, has he? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: The PR is currently at 7/3/2 with one vote to close. Unless there's a radical change of opinion within a day or two, yes, he will lose his bit. Isa (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That just doesn't seem right, ethically speaking. For me, he's been very difficult to deal with as an editor, but I've not had any problems with him as an admin that I can recall; in fact I think he has helped from time to time. I'm saddened if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Perhaps this is something you should write on the case's talk page. Isa (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Will do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

TRM case

Sorry, I was taking it personally. Now I realize it wasn't directed at me. Sca (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sca: I'm not the one you should apologize to. Isa (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Spiders

Sorry for the confusion. I momentarily misinterpreted your change to the caption. If you'd like to add your comment below my question that would be fine. In any case, no biggie. Best, Sca (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sca: All good! Isa (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Mads Mikkelsen"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Mads Mikkelsen with the reason "removed disambig, not even close". Actually, I placed the disambiguation hatnote in the article because I was confusing Mads Mikkelsen and Michael Madsen, whose names are rather close, and who are in the same field in the same medium—actors in American television shows. "Mads" is the basis for the Danish patronimic "Madsen", while "Mikkelsen" is the patronymic for the Norwegian version of "Michael". Would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: No, because they're not even close phonetically or visually, however related their etymology may be. But I don't care enough to revert you again, so do as you wish. Thanks for heads up though. Isa (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Article

Hello, may I ask why you do not want to discuss the YouTube interview and article written by an investigative journalist about Wikipedia? If you disagree with her that is fine, just add your comments and get a discussion going. Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

MP talk

Isa, you might be interested in this segment. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: Hi! I'd be happy to help, but I don't see how this discussion concerns me at all. Isa (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Main Page Issues

Hi Isa, I'm a long time background text editor on wiki. I noticed your reply to the comment about "grim main page". Technically, I agree that if you want to see change, be it or do it. The problem with that, is that few of us have time to learn the whole rigmarole about editing and promoting wiki articles.

This leaves the News section devolving into CNN bloodshed, and Features a steady diet of Australian banksia plants, cricketers and army officers; with side orders of video games, dreadnought battleships, and US minted coins.

The deaths and featured people On This Day are the only things left worth coming to the wikipedia main page for. It used to be a cool place to explore, and I made it my main page back then.

Wikipedia needs to show some leadership, and appoint a senior paid editor to steer the ship a bit and set the balance for the main page.

I mention this to you as you seem connected, and able to advocate for same. The whole wiki universe is a fog patch on the Grand Banks to the rest of us.

Have a nice day. Ben 184.69.174.194 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ben. To me, consensus is the fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary. The only way to influence consensus is to participate, which does mean learning at least part of "the whole rigmarole about editing". You'll note that appointing "a senior paid editor to steer the ship" would be pretty high on my list of "don't".

That being said, I do recognize that there is a bias towards disasters and death, but the solution must come from the articles themselves instead of adding arbitrary limits to the kind of content that can get posted. Having varied, high quality articles and nominating them will have a much better effect. Isa (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it ok I posted here?

Thanks so much for telling me about the equal signs. That's literally all I needed to know, now I'm good. So is it easier me posting this here instead of keep adding discussion's? And now I promise I'm done bothering you lol Kristinewalker501 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kristinewalker501: You're not bothering me at all. The vast majority of people prefer to keep discussions in one place, so you should answer where the discussion currently is. If somebody writes something on your talk page, they'll typically add it to their watchlist to know when you answer. You can do that too by clicking the star on top of any page.

To be sure, you can also ping them by adding this in your comment: {{ping|Username}}. To ping me, for example, you'd write {{ping|Isanae}}. Make sure to use the actual username, many users, like me, have a signature with a different name. However, you don't have to ping users when writing on their own talk page because they'll get notified automatically. When you ping a user, they'll get a notification (like you just did!). Isa (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)