User talk:Walsh90210

Archives

Archive 1

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Thanks for starting the one-by-one AfD cleanup of all these denominations. It’s very helpful if you can ping participants in the earlier group nom, just in case I don’t see the one-offs. I’ve done a little previous cleanup of Cryx88’s creations, many of which have very problematic sourcing. Any article whose sole source is Reformiert-online likely needs to go through AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the shouting's all over at ANI, I thought I'd explain a point you raised there. The reason there's that barrage of DO NOT CHANGE hidden notes is that, after undoing the 10th person who just didn't bother to read it [1][2][3], I figured that if I put a separate note between every letter of every word, they couldn't possibly miss them. See [4]. And it's worked ever since! EEng 01:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walsh90210, I've checked the comment on the delete/revert of the footnote which doesn't seem to explain your reason and purpose. Could you elaborate perhaps? In the mean time I have reverted your revert of the footnote. cheers Rockycape (t • c •g) 04:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote of Downball requires a wall or a squares court depending on which version of Downball is being played. on the very first word of an article is inappropriate. Footnotes like that are generally used for things such as pronunciation, not to include a sentence that could be in the lead section if it were written well. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was another editor that gave a talk recently about using notes more often especially in articles that need more hands on deck to build the article. They recommended more frequent notes in an article in the situation where there's not much discussion on the article talk page because this is a good way of engaging more readers and editors. And it seems that's what happened when you noticed the note and made an edit and it seems it's working as intended. Rockycape (t • c •g) 07:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They recommended more frequent notes in an article in the situation where there's not much discussion on the article talk page because this is a good way of engaging more readers and editors. - where was this? I think you're misunderstanding the advice. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, this is a discussion, so bringing up vote tallies is a bit unhelpful.

I am technically involved in that discussion. I do kind of agree with the conclusion in part 3. For question 1, many were addressing the use of PCECP as it relates to Q2, not whether it should be turned on. I think you also missed the part of the RfC that said "it is assumed that it is technically possible to have PCECP." There is no rush to consensus, and I would rather have let the RfC expire and the discussion be archived automatically than a potentially problematic formal closure. Closures of RfCs also differ massively from closures of XfDs, etc. Awesome Aasim 01:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.
If I didn't mention the vote-tally, someone would have asked for it. And, if your preferred alternative to a "no consensus" close is "archive without closure", I will not consider your request. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't mention the vote-tally, someone would have asked for it. Is this your first major closure? It seems like it. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You shouldn't treat it as such. You need to weight the policy-based arguments appropriately. Also, The primary argument in favor is that PCECP is better than the current ECP protection; the primary argument against is that PCECP is not better than the current ECP protection. What is that supposed to mean?

Also, what is with the closing of Q4? That barely got any participation whatsoever. That feels more like a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a true finding of consensus.

I would strongly suggest you amend your closing rationale or let someone else close this. Yes I am involved. Yes I did not think there would be some chance that Q2 or Q3 would pass. No I don't think it would be appropriate to close without first checking some of the arguments and counterarguments given. Awesome Aasim 03:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second and final time, I'm not going to re-consider a No Consensus close if you don't think there's consensus for anything. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as The primary argument in favor is that PCECP is better than the current ECP protection; the primary argument against is that PCECP is not better than the current ECP protection., it means exactly what it says. The most prominent argument in support of PCECP was that it would be an improvement to replace ECP-protection on some pages with PCECP; the most prominent argument against PCECP was that it would not be an improvement to replace ECP-protection on some pages with PCECP. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Extended_confirmed_pending_changes_(PCECP). Awesome Aasim 04:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your rationale for deleting/redirecting List of classical music composers by era without discussion. — Gor1995 𝄞 09:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in the previous AfD discussion on Allison Bailey, I am notifying you that there is currently an AfD discussion for the renamed page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the {distinguish|truck} hatnotes are "needed because of English variants". Can you be more specific? Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]