User talk:Amakuru/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Amakuru. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

Hi, the revert you made removed content that was part of the RfA. It shouldn't have been moved to the tp, and is now restored. Thanks.- ^theWOLFchild 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW - let me know if you need diffs or anything. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 17:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: thanks for leaving me a message, but your amending of the RFA after it had closed is not permitted, and you'll see that the text in question has been removed again by another admin, and the page locked for a week. Please do not alter the archived RFA after that date either. The RFA was formally closed with this edit by Ritchie333, and the content of the page must remain the same after that point, so that it's clear to future readers what basis the closer used for making their close. I understand what you mean about your points being moved without your consent, and probably that it something that should have been done by a bureaucrat or admin, and without the rude comment, but it's not actually unusual in RFAs for off-topic discussions following individual oppose !votes to be moved to the talk page, with a note, because otherwise it disrupts the flow of the RFA page. It looks like Winged Blades of Godric self-reverted their reinstatement of the text for similar reasons. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The 3 posts that were removed from the RfA shouldn't have been. It was done just minutes before the close (and thus had no bearing on the close), and I was just in the process of restoring them when the close was saved. They should remain in the RfA. If it needs to be an admin or bureaucrat that does it, with some explanatory edit summary or talk page note, then so be it, but they are a legitimate part of that RfA and need to be restored. Hostile and disruptive editors shouldn't be allowed to alter these pages (and you've just stated the importance of keeping an accurate record). What is unfortunate is that with all the admins and bureaucrats watching the page, that off-topic nonsense was allowed to go on as long as it did, that I was the one that had to move the off-topic comments to the talk page, and that the on-topic comments were permitted to be moved about so many times in the first place. Yes, a close is a close, but it's not carved in stone. With all the effort you've put into reverting and posting comments, you could've easily just fixed the problem and we could all move on. You could still do that now... - ^theWOLFchild 21:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI this is the correct version that contains the now missing 3 posts. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: please just WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. The rules are crystal clear, the close should be preserved at the moment it was archived, and I'm not the only person who's told you that. Also, as I said before, the moving of comments not directly related to the RFA to the talk page is perfectly standard practice. The RFA is closed, so let's get on with building the encyclopedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're preaching p&g to me while giving a free pass to a hostile and disruptive user, basically telling him it's ok to break whatever policies he likes and disrupt these pages you consider as so sacrosanct? This is enabling at its worst. Again, where were all these admonishments and warnings when this user was disrupting that RfA and violating multiple guidelines in the first place? All I was trying to do was restore a few posts, that were a part of the RfA, that had been improperly removed only minutes before and missed the close by a matter of mere seconds. I'm not the one that created the problem, I was trying to fix it. As it stands now, those posts are missing completely (as in, not on any page), so how about this; we'll wait until the pp expires and add then re-add them, but outside the close, (which is done all the time) with a note stating which entry they belong to? That way, the posts are back on the page where they belong, but the RfA remains intact as it was at the exact moment of close - problem solved. In the meantime, if you want the "stick dropped", sure, consider it dropped. "Let's go build"... - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in this massive effort to prove me right about you, why don't you instead take me to ANI and see what happens? --JBL (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Stalking now? Seriously? If anyone here needs to 'drop the stick', it's you. This behavior of yours can only be described as bizarre. Why don't you find something better to do, instead of this persistent baiting and hostility? It's disruptive. And as for an ANI... no, I have absolutely no interest in interacting with you any further. - ^theWOLFchild 05:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Amakuru:

The page I recently created—Root Insurance Company—was deleted for promotional content and then protected by you from future creation. I’m writing to find out how I can a) make the content less promotional and b) have it either created by an administrator or regain permissions to do it, myself.

Root Insurance is a notable organization, offering insurance based primarily on driving data collected from a smartphone; it’s important for the general public to be informed of the quickly progressing insurance market and tech world.

The article does not promote the business, but rather explains straightforwardly what the car insurance company is and how it differs from others within the market. I have revised wording that may have appeared promotional in my first upload and have backed up all statistics and quotes with reputable external citations. In fact, I’ve used already approved Wikipedia pages with similar content as a reference point. So, I’m very confused as to why it’s been deleted twice.

Are you able to provide specific feedback regarding areas within the article that appear promotional in nature so that I can adjust? Or can you point me in the direction where I can receive more feedback? (I’ve already read the pages on Wikipedia about promotional content and feel like I followed the rules). Also, how do revoke my loss of posting the site? Thank you for your assistance; I certainly wish to follow Wikipedia’s rules and structure.

Sincerely, Sara Starnes (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Sara Starnes

Hi,

I noticed your interest in portals. Here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes with them...

Currently, there are about 1500 portals, comprised of 150,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 1500 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material).

The Portal WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and has grown to 68 members. We've been busy redesigning the portal model so that portals will not need all those subpages.

The design concept called "selective transclusion", which is used for migrating excerpts (moving them to the base page), does so by displaying part of an article the same as a template. An added benefit of this is that it also keeps them fresh, by always showing the current version of the content that is transcluded.

We are also working on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained.

Other automated solutions are being sought or developed for each section type of portals. To automatically update and archive news, did you know entries, and so on.

Once we get a fully automated design worked out, it will be applied to all the portals that do not have dedicated maintainers. This will reduce the amount of maintenance they need. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, with each portal taking up only a single page in portal space.

The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to updating, upgrading, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it.

Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join.    — The Transhumanist   05:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: there are lots of WikiGnome tasks to do, too. -TT

@The Transhumanist: thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you remove protection from redirect Prince Charles? 71.202.112.200 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@71.202.112.200: no, I can't remove that protection I'm afraid. I don't think there is any legitimate reason why Prince Charles should be changed from its current target of Charles, Prince of Wales. If you think something should be changed, please bring it up on the talk page as a protected edit request, or start a request at WP:RFD. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Something went wrong with your add back on the noms page. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: Yes, so I see. Thanks for spotting that. I must have had a brain freeze and clicked edit on an old version of the page. I've hopefully done the re-add properly now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)