Contents

User talk:Fieari

• User talk:Fieari/Archive 1
• User talk:Fieari/Archive 2
• User talk:Fieari/Archive 3

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Despite the misunderstanding at the AFD, I applaud the manner in which you handled things, coming to my tp, explaining yourself better and acknowledging it wasn’t your intention to cast aspersions. This is the quality every editor should possess. Celestina007 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a comprehensive analysis with explanations as you demanded from me. Cheers. Celestina007 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hurricane Gloria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could I request a review of your close at Template talk:Infobox legislative election. Firstly, with regards to your vote counting, you might have missed one editor initially being in the yes camp but changing their mind (although they apparently forgot to strike their !vote). Secondly, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear that infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". What was being discussed here is something that does not appear in the article. When closing discussions, WP:DISCARD should be applied to arguments that ignored guidelines or policies, which was the case here as a majority of votes were simply WP:ILIKEIT/WP:USEFUL-type arguments. Cheers, Number 57 07:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I'd be happy to discuss the closure.

• I do now see the thread with ValenciaThunderbolt. Looking at it closer, my interpretation of the conversation (particularly in light of the fact that they did not change their bolded !vote) would be less that they were convinced that you were fully correct and their former position was incorrect, and more that their position changed to ambivalence-- that is, either option would be acceptable to them. However, I don't believe that even if I had counted this person's !vote as fully changed that the overall result of the RFC would be fundamentally changed because of the next point.
• MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is part of the manual of style. It is policy in as far as these are standards that should, lacking specific local consensus to the contrary, be followed in all relevant articles. But that's the key thing, the manual of style is expressly written such that it can, may, and must be ignored when there is local consensus to the contrary. As a policy, it is far weaker than policies such as WP:RS, or WP:BLP, both of which take precedence and can overwrite even a complete unanimous local consensus against them. The manual of style doesn't have that power. The manual of style is a default that can be overwritten locally for reasons such as "it's useful". Citing WP:USEFUL is actually a good point of contrast, as that page talks about deletion arguments surrounding the much stronger policy of WP:RS and WP:GNG, neither of which are part of the Manual of Style. I will quote the notice box at the top of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." An RFC that is heavily weighted against the MOS in some local area is exactly what can create those "occasional exceptions".

Fieari (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]