User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G'day mate Can you do me a favour a seek autoconfirmed protection for the article. I've just noticed an IP has added rapist into the first sentence of the lede again. I'd seek the protection myself but I've just gone to bed and only have my phone. Cheers, TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested here. Can't say I have much sympathy for the subject of the article, but it's getting out of hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and agreed. TarnishedPathtalk 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of airline destinations[edit]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested, you suggested in this deletion review to have an RfC that would act as a de facto AfD. While I like this idea, I'm concerned that it would make things confusing; some of the list articles (e.g. Aeroflot) contain prose that would have to be copied to the parent article first, and then the list would have to be redirected rather than deleted per WP:PATT. After the 2018 RfC there was an attempt to delete all the lists at once, which created chaos (also, two of the lists were WP:FL at the time, and there was the issue of limited participation).

Could I ask your opinion on treating the RfC only as an RfC, but leaving notices on every stand-alone list to ensure adequate participation? Subsequent AfDs would still be required. I believe it would be easy to bundle lists like Spirit Airlines, but ones like Aeroflot may require individual AfDs or at least smaller bundles (to show that the prose has been dealt with appropriately). This is assuming the RfC results in a consensus that the lists don't belong on Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional caution and notification is a good idea. Taking it slow and making sure everyone has a say will hopefully lead to less contention in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A date being "banned" in a TALK PAGE!![edit]

Does this really seem like the behaviour of a reasonable person? Regarding : NIKKI BENZ 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again they are correct. It may seem strange but Wikipedia takes anything related to a living person very serious, the policy on it (WP:Biographies of living persons or BLP in short hand) applies to every page on Wikipedia not just the articles. That would include not displaying personal information unless it has already been widely reported or stated by the subject. What I would suggest is finding some good sources for the date of birth, and discussing them on the articles talk page. Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project, try to understand other editors concerns (even if they seem unreasonable) and work with to come to something you can both agree on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Sangdeboeuf is not engaging responsibly 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't stop. Grow up. Isn't very friendly either. The more fuel is put on the fire the more it burns. Spend some time finding sources, come back and prove your right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have put sources. And again I am not even adding it to the article, but to have the date REMOVED from a talk page, how is that conducive to a discussion, when the date in question can't even be mentioned? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, which part of "BLP policy ... applies to all pages, including talk pages" (patiently explained by me and ActivelyDisinterested above) are you having trouble with? There's nothing special about a random calendar date. How does naming it help the discussion? What's important is whether the sources are reliable or not. The sources you've linked are generally trash. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the sources on the talk page and comment there further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suissa & Sullivan[edit]

My guess is that it has nothing to do with how that paper is being used on this page but that the editor doesn't want to see it successfully challenged as WP:PROFRINGE because of its use on other pages.

[1]

Suissa & Sullivan managing to publish this bit of free-speech trolling in a prestigious journal has been very useful for sympathetic representations of famous bigots. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Simonm223 Rowling's page is one of the areas I really don't want to get involved with. I stand by my comment at RSN, but have no comment to make on the wider issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]