User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10

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. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN 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)

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)

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)

Hi. Thanks for the notice. Most of the times I have removed the messages it is per WP:DTR, and WMrapids has likewise done the same several times, as they themselves commented.

While I appreciate you notifying me, what I don't like is you saying that this is to "avoid scrutiny" ([1]), and you can see that there are plenty of exchanges with WMrapids that I have kept. I would have preferred if you asked me about it before drawing conclusions. Please let me know if you have any other further questions. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:26, 22 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.

1. 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...
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

Hi. While this proposal can be a good first step, I don't think I can agree with an interaction restriction (at least if it covers even partial reverts or changes), given that some of the changes I have disputed have consisted in content that failed to be verified and have overall affected the quality of articles.

I have tried adopting a 1RR approach overall and allowing the 24 hours period (or more) for discussion, and it sounds similar to your second point.

If I might ask for more context, can you explain a little better the third point? Does this mean generally notifying the other editor if a change is disputed or if one is thining about reverting?

If there's anything I'd have to add, is to stress I think that talk pages should also be used before the changes, and not only after, given that I think that a good part of the disputes so far has been caused by the large scope of said changes. Let me know what you think about this.

Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Well for the third point, I'm really trying to emphasize the importance of reverting at all costs and being more communicative on how an article should be structured. Since the use of tags has been controversial between us, I am open to receiving pings in talk pages if you have a dispute or concern as it is less disruptive to the article. The main point is that we add more than we subtract from an article. WMrapids (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@WMrapids: Many thanks for the clarification. I'll try commenting about potential tagging, in that case. I wanted to comment again about the possibility of talking before expansions, given their scope. I don't want this to be construed in any way that you would be "asking for permission", but I feel it's more of a matter of reciprocity and I probably would be able to provide feedback about the content at hand, possibly even including more. Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)