Meta tags:
Headings (most frequently used words):
rfc, for, wikipedia, talk, at, on, question, process, the, of, requests, comment, contents, bad, close, wikiproject, classical, music, amending, project, guidelines, infoboxes, did, do, it, right, llm, problems, about, tags, framing, threshold, undue, weight, and, possible, promotional, content, in, byzantine, empire, script, opening, editor, should, be, used, controversial, proposed, merges, miscellaneous, pages, faq, top, this, page,
Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (452), that (173), and (151), you (119), talk (118), rfc (116), 2026 (90), utc (90), reply (89), not (78), for (69), this (66), page (65), are (65), #should (57), have (56), there (55), with (53), wikipedia (46), august (46), can (45), about (44), discussion (44), they (42), article (42), consensus (41), think (39), but (36), editors (35), wikiproject (34), dispute (33), question (33), july (33), what (32), comment (31), how (31), was (29), don (29), people (29), whatamidoing (29), one (27), would (26), tag (26), any (26), because (26), comments (26), their (26), faq (25), group (25), just (24), time (24), like (23), edit (23), essay (23), then (23), all (23), other (22), say (22), your (22), which (22), has (22), rfcs (22), pages (21), may (19), editor (19), change (19), advice (19), june (19), polygnotus (18), opinions (18), whether (18), project (18), problem (17), opinion (17), its (17), own (17), who (17), see (17), community (17), policy (16), get (16), tags (16), wikiprojects (16), from (15), someone (15), been (15), such (15), over (15), more (14), want (14), here (14), used (14), neutral (14), ago (14), sources (14), guidelines (14), something (13), user (13), view (12), text (12), non (12), when (12), isn (12), statements (12), latest (12), might (12), right (12), apple (12), agree (11), resolution (11), could (11), also (11), does (11), questions (11), content (11), why (11), will (11), however (11), out (10), actually (10), understand (10), else (10), cannot (10), new (10), without (10), doesn (10), them (10), marshall (10), specific (10), long (10), many (10), than (10), point (10), some (10), under (9), most (9), either (9), template (9), person (9), where (9), everyone (9), know (9), please (9), close (9), only (9), case (9), process (9), says (9), even (9), usually (9), members (9), use (8), create (8), dw31415 (8), based (8), need (8), better (8), good (8), another (8), old (8), asking (8), those (8), note (8), rather (8), including (8), did (8), days (8), proposed (8), changes (8), same (8), games (8), write (8), disputes (8), within (8), financial (8), requests (7), example (7), work (7), very (7), official (7), anyone (7), giraffedata (7), line (7), included (7), section (7), well (7), made (7), aren (7), top (7), current (7), yes (7), clear (7), issue (7), prior (7), main (7), remove (7), weight (7), space (7), infobox (7), infoboxes (7), 4meter4 (7), add (6), topic (6), contents (6), make (6), having (6), fact (6), being (6), explain (6), straw (6), waste (6), start (6), actual (6), presume (6), removing (6), few (6), pov (6), disputed (6), discussed (6), problems (6), others (6), started (6), help (6), personal (6), proposal (6), idea (6), end (6), fix (6), were (6), original (6), ask (6), two (6), name (6), platforms (6), assassination (6), tagging (6), itself (6), involved (6), move (6), express (6), bankruptcy (6), freespeech (6), read (6), feb (6), 2005 (6), summary (6), table (5), last (5), possible (5), shouldn (5), generally (5), never (5), appropriate (5), rules (5), allowed (5), improve (5), sense (5), arguments (5), role (5), every (5), man (5), bryan (5), henderson (5), didn (5), always (5), aware (5), almost (5), fixed (5), these (5), again (5), let (5), closed (5), sidebar (5), trying (5), part (5), opposite (5), put (5), contains (5), link (5), saying (5), month (5), stephenmacky1 (5), into (5), wouldn (5), required (5), future (5), early (5), someonedreaming (5), among (5), sentence (5), much (5), byzantine (5), way (5), reliable (5), promotional (5), policies (5), articles (5), too (5), quotations (5), needed (5), llm (5), supposed (5), classical (5), music (5), views (5), formal (5), guideline (5), thing (5), speech (5), wider (5), 2021 (5), search (4), statement (4), apply (4), using (4), missed (4), disagree (4), doing (4), sometimes (4), rule (4), userspace (4), found (4), asked (4), assume (4), answer (4), especially (4), though (4), lot (4), side (4), reason (4), hasn (4), yet (4), haven (4), brief (4), script (4), options (4), belongs (4), relevant (4), had (4), compromise (4), while (4), chose (4), multiple (4), matter (4), discussions (4), wants (4), already (4), history (4), archives (4), consider (4), closing (4), myself (4), short (4), opening (4), open (4), come (4), after (4), groups (4), language (4), ancestries (4), separate (4), option (4), languages (4), changed (4), bob (4), game (4), violate (4), first (4), undue (4), outside (4), represent (4), longer (4), resolve (4), discussing (4), nobody (4), feels (4), added (4), issues (4), list (4), claims (4), weigh (4), find (4), force (4), conflict (4), down (4), protected (4), believe (4), include (4), each (4), 2007 (4), bot (4), hide (4), available (3), random (3), maybe (3), done (3), things (3), both (3), parties (3), important (3), subpage (3), moved (3), exactly (3), least (3), tagged (3), illusion (3), thin (3), air (3), thinking (3), makes (3), stated (3), considered (3), entire (3), arguing (3), thinks (3), faith (3), position (3), wikipedian (3), try (3), everything (3), unless (3), sure (3), simply (3), existence (3), normally (3), information (3), making (3), phrasing (3), allowing (3), ownership (3), description (3), looks (3), quite (3), below (3), valid (3), now (3), knows (3), number (3), wrong (3), removed (3), must (3), true (3), follow (3), neither (3), post (3), appears (3), join (3), controversial (3), specifically (3), interested (3), file (3), account (3), templates (3), 2015 (3), banned (3), occurred (3), instead (3), defeat (3), rfcbefore (3), similar (3), next (3), billedmammal (3), 2013 (3), indigenous (3), greek (3), suggest (3), listing (3), minor (3), mostly (3), times (3), empire (3), look (3), coffeeurbanite (3), mentioning (3), give (3), whichever (3), examples (3), selected (3), prominence (3), appearance (3), threshold (3), active (3), framing (3), deal (3), although (3), maintenance (3), state (3), ideas (3), against (3), said (3), contribs (3), ____ (3), robert (3), mcclenon (3), since (3), brink (3), verge (3), secondary (3), sort (3), words (3), mevsherd (3), small (3), minority (3), gets (3), equally (3), particular (3), anything (3), place (3), whole (3), leave (3), encouraged (3), certain (3), area (3), viewpoint (3), suppress (3), viewpoints (3), editorial (3), general (3), essays (3), 2010 (3), deletion (3), free (3), result (3), individual (3), 2006 (3), tools (3), toggle (2), contact (2), disclaimers (2), privacy (2), additional (2), terms (2), attribution (2), https (2), org (2), index (2), php (2), title (2), oldid (2), grid (2), faqs (2), particularly (2), once (2), conversation (2), difficult (2), seem (2), belong (2), somewhere (2), introduce (2), persons (2), unofficial (2), probably (2), basically (2), experience (2), consenting (2), answers (2), frequently (2), happened (2), reject (2), system (2), establishing (2), posting (2), trick (2), engaging (2), debate (2), presuming (2), difference (2), between (2), practice (2), exist (2), reduce (2), possibility (2), continued (2), factual (2), errors (2), face (2), ability (2), big (2), going (2), reference (2), editing (2), yeah (2), our (2), shows (2), recent (2), edits (2), less (2), wrote (2), situation (2), giving (2), able (2), she (2), telling (2), explained (2), badly (2), wasn (2), floor (2), violating (2), support (2), incorrect (2), previous (2), flippant (2), wanted (2), editsummary (2), refers (2), back (2), went (2), agreed (2), three (2), wikipedians (2), thanks (2), minutes (2), merges (2), miscellaneous (2), figure (2), source (2), useful (2), responses (2), correctly (2), seems (2), input (2), mentioned (2), lack (2), neutrality (2), present (2), perhaps (2), requirement (2), nothing (2), ending (2), opened (2), admit (2), approach (2), rfcend (2), exceptions (2), thought (2), rose64 (2), red (2), quoted (2), basic (2), outlined (2), permission (2), legobot (2), run (2), automatically (2), age (2), votes (2), completely (2), created (2), influence (2), century (2), weren (2), whereas (2), appear (2), linguistic (2), hellenization (2), asia (2), whose (2), inhabitants (2), abandoned (2), widget (2), alice (2), called (2), popular (2), ever (2), mention (2), taking (2), above (2), receive (2), subject (2), npov (2), concerns (2), playing (2), looking (2), remain (2), resolved (2), utterly (2), permanent (2), cost (2), wide (2), underlying (2), necessary (2), detailed (2), direct (2), compared (2), couple (2), glance (2), contain (2), type (2), past (2), towards (2), satisfy (2), discuss (2), usage (2), special (2), addressed (2), really (2), request (2), significant (2), seen (2), per (2), spent (2), improving (2), helpful (2), seeing (2), bluethricecreamman (2), reform (2), take (2), actions (2), handed (2), clearly (2), primary (2), means (2), interpretation (2), ways (2), avoid (2), aquillion (2), imminent (2), claim (2), recommend (2), power (2), political (2), control (2), informal (2), together (2), trouble (2), friends (2), dislike (2), student (2), sit (2), different (2), collective (2), recommendations (2), permitted (2), wording (2), highly (2), treated (2), enforcing (2), private (2), set (2), seek (2), before (2), defined (2), interest (2), member (2), left (2), constitution (2), beland (2), internally (2), dictate (2), regardless (2), suppression (2), got (2), collectively (2), forcing (2), profess (2), willingly (2), limits (2), discouraged (2), links (2), outcome (2), circumstances (2), acceptable (2), during (2), nor (2), prohibited (2), parts (2), through (2), accept (2), organizations (2), external (2), bad (2), amending (2), 2023 (2), november (2), april (2), 2020 (2), 2018 (2), october (2), 2016 (2), january (2), 2012 (2), 2009 (2), jan (2), dec (2), oct (2), sep (2), 2004 (2), effort (2), participate (2), tasks (2), depending (2), rarely (2), day (2), officially (2), participants (2), binding (2), off (2), formatting (2), learn (2), related (2), upload (2), log (2), donate (2), menu (2), mobile, cookie, statistics, developers, code, conduct, legal, safety, contacts, site, registered, trademark, profit, organization, wikimedia, foundation, inc, creative, commons, sharealike, license, rendered, parsoid, edited, category, retrieved, wikipedia_talk, requests_for_comment, 1370537887, reachable, elsewhere, mind, spelling, yup, gimme, sec, prefer, normal, wherein, thats, extraordinary, writ, introduced, exclusively, plays, world, asks, naked, containing, supposedly, speaking, debating, men, knowing, twice, indicate, takes, energy, easy, draw, attention, believing, practicality, alternative, allows, base, slightly, commented, exists, falling, excluded, hoaxes, typos, believes, challenge, presumed, objection, skip, ingermane, hand, shades, violation, standard, claimed, dude, wasting, rehash, hash, procedural, guys, installed, unnecessary, saves, top5, convenient, keep, eye, impasse, sufficient, size, reached, expensive, rfctracker, brd, answered, responded, interesting, consistently, refuse, awkward, repeatedly, undoing, improvements, summarily, delist, approve, police, god, misinterpreted, assuming, respectively, thoughts, label, header, users, object, war, contradicts, objected, inappropriate, apologies, missing, tired, still, obvious, flippancy, understood, false, belief, solved, ones, intended, provide, extra, explanation, clue, unclear, irrelevant, revert, invited, favifake, village, pump, merge, nominations, mfd, requested, justified, honest, misunderstanding, attitude, starts, purely, practical, unlikely, course, starting, suspected, impose, collapsed, yours, spam, attack, escalates, further, report, huh, collapsing, accounts, ips, proposals, far, checked, behind, considering, years, hard, connection, ivo, andrić, clean, ani, clarity, refusing, comply, demand, ignore, resolving, davidbrownid, counts, withdrawn, poster, whenever, happens, advantages, contrast, furthermore, okay, needs, restore, boxed, restored, straight, ought, visible, replied, changing, avoided, redact, posts, tpo, central, lists, ends, manually, pointed, proceeding, withdrew, creating, proper, procedure, feel, retained, later, additions, messing, vladimir, lenin, appeal, horrocks, geoffrey, 208, anatolian, plateau, inland, begun, dominant, culture, alexander, conquests, descendants, peoples, lycians, pamphylians, sidetians, isaurians, pisidians, lycaonians, carians, lydians, phrygians, cappadocians, immigrant, celts, goths, jews, persians, fairly, hellenized, 6th, 978, 1118785157, isbn, speakers, references, nudge, bit, vague, existing, pretty, enough, _____, blank, stamp, breadandhumus, various, lydian, carian, phrygian, isaurian, pisidian, lycaonian, lycian, favor, regarding, inclusion, requires, occasionally, surprises, literally, solve, digging, noes, product, keeps, alchemy, iconic, chris, celebrities, described, addition, thank, respond, brilliantly, commercial, illustrate, locus, closer, order, sentences, play, starter, major, glanced, notion, promotionalism, exceeds, typical, single, appreciate, feedback, adding, raise, focuses, skipping, came, via, nature, solo, evidence, intractable, semi, desperate, til, happy, live, justify, high, themselves, causing, strife, modern, head, deserve, ideal, sound, easily, settle, detail, length, jfk, fas, 20th, assassinations, heads, compare, suspect, immediate, principles, dealt, marshal, focus, away, improvement, whoever, degrade, indicated, family, warn, reader, disapprove, badge, shame, doc, waid, genuine, written, preferable, realize, earlier, overlooks, common, eliminate, willing, moot, fixing, preceding, unsigned, adds, ___, removes, ugly, unreasonable, stub, lead, expand, blueboar, william, mckinley, talaat, pasha, arrest, ngo, dinh, diem, john, kennedy, park, chung, hee, agreeing, fights, ideally, converted, ready, prepare, flagged, moderated, noticeboard, needing, workshopped, indeffed, consecutive, fail, due, extensive, guidance, writing, repeating, prohibition, behavior, generated, plan, hopelessly, compromised, demonstrated, salvage, failing, nollm, antioch, international, movement, churches, life, impact, local, sets, latter, reads, scare, quotes, juxtaposition, slide, skeptical, privileges, accurate, mere, depends, reasonably, perform, analysis, assumed, power_mac_g4_cube, diff, 1362544310, interface, includes, mac, cube, david, fuchs, modeling, thereof, protect, standing, determine, essentially, affirm, discounted, factionalism, counter, expressing, voice, membership, conveys, degree, subpages, turn, strenuously, advise, discard, argument, collaborate, aspect, faction, push, interpretations, odds, tell, location, tracking, activities, school, lunch, room, around, assigned, seating, works, eats, lunches, insist, soon, leaving, unfortunate, alone, spend, whom, entirely, volunteers, namespace, material, omissions, superprotect, stop, disrupting, servers, attorney, expertise, profits, board, measures, forth, separation, notbluesky, bluesky, wheelwar, letters, petitions, proposing, relatively, distinct, opportunity, according, speak, individuals, unite, battleground, owns, perfect, liberty, draft, instructional, brought, therefore, systematically, precedence, immediately, reverting, unsuspecting, michaelmaggs, hidden, explicitly, advance, exclusive, enforce, call, info, box, design, wishes, themself, perfectly, entitled, typically, bother, sounds, merely, status, event, argues, fear, complaint, misunderstandings, raised, objections, step, rest, paragraph, versions, semantics, little, abuse, author, totally, enforceable, reflect, measure, defend, incursions, rename, word, fine, stand, standpoint, intent, matters, rapidly, badrfc, explaining, lol, looked, fairness, relfect, given, expressed, suppressed, forcibly, fair, spaces, forming, reflecting, ethically, choice, foster, compliant, spirit, concern, removal, emphasis, tone, meaning, etc, recognize, discourage, application, comes, altering, formulate, meant, tool, published, reflective, public, large, unlike, adivce, tied, scenario, hates, contradicting, ordinary, context, forced, directly, assert, mos, infoboxuse, composers, self, exempt, applies, except, miscellany, misuse, mean, uses, misuses, ban, mess, oppose, principle, 5p4, welcomed, additionally, sorts, address, endless, supply, noticed, points, arbcom, determined, council, guide, happening, btw, classification, defends, share, usual, prevents, clarification, posted, warrants, outright, recommended, providing, linked, concerned, perceive, endorse, serious, ethics, organized, interests, mini, form, act, provided, bounds, conflicting, tantamount, suppressing, violates, opposing, effect, unethical, internal, setting, employer, coming, union, ethical, fundamental, freedom, topics, inactive, archived, lowercase, sigmabot, iii, 2008, jun, archive, scope, collaborative, practices, visit, require, rating, scale, following, assessment, respondents, varies, amount, higher, lower, technical, unusual, five, range, zero, several, hundred, 2024, prove, hold, second, soundly, rejected, proponents, grace, plausibly, sides, inherently, effective, determining, holds, withdraw, winning, advised, week, vote, substantially, appearing, copy, plus, timestamp, simplified, adjust, shorten, loyal, opposition, swayed, minds, conclusions, grounds, halt, participating, relevance, hours, alert, apparently, running, certainly, message, bottom, owner, turned, getting, listed, notices, shortcut, welcoming, newcomers, attacks, polite, welcome, purposes, encyclopedia, projects, printable, version, download, pdf, print, export, switch, legacy, parser, shortened, url, english, supported, portal, contribute, events, navigation, jump,
Text of the page (random words):
ning an example in a single sentence or even two is not the same as giving prominence to it first the question you proposed there of should the article give undue weight to is a non starter you might as well write should we violate major content policies there s no need to ask such a question we all know what the answer will be the actual locus of the dispute appears to be closer to does mentioning examples of games violate the npov policy with a side order of does having a few sentences about why people might play these games violate the npov policy the answers to your questions above are which games and platforms should be included whichever games and platforms are discussed in the reliable sources how examples should be selected whichever games and platforms illustrate the point being made these are usually discussed in the reliable sources how much weight they should receive the same as any other subject give more weight to whichever games and platforms are discussed in the reliable sources something that occasionally surprises editors is that there is literally no way to figure out how to solve this dispute without digging into the reliable sources if someone is saying oh noes they re mentioning the name of a commercial product that s promotional then they re doing it wrong if someone is saying this article keeps going on and on and on about bob s widget game and when i look at reliable sources such as bob s widget game is never mentioned but alice s alchemy is called iconic and chris s celebrities is described as the most popular ever so i think we should mention those two instead of or in addition to bob s then they re doing it right whatamidoing talk 17 48 21 july 2026 utc reply whatamidoing thank you for taking the time to respond i see your point and i thought you explained it brilliantly coffeeurbanite talk 01 19 1 august 2026 utc reply rfc in byzantine empire edit latest comment 24 days ago 4 comments 4 people in discussion i have a dispute in the talk page of byzantine empire regarding the inclusion of not of specific information rfc requires the statement should be neutral and brief is it a valid rfc if i ask should the sentence in section language a similar process of linguistic hellenization occurred in asia minor whose inhabitants had mostly abandoned their indigenous languages for greek by early byzantine times changed to a similar process of linguistic hellenization occurred in asia minor whose inhabitants of various ancestries including lydian carian phrygian isaurian pisidian lycaonian lycian among others had mostly abandoned their indigenous languages in favor for greek by early byzantine times 1 breadandhumus talk 06 28 28 july 2026 utc reply a more neutral question would be should specific ancestries be included in _____ where blank is either a description of the sentence or better yet the section you can add the current as an option a and your proposed as option b options should appear after the time stamp as a nudge i suggest you try listing the ancestries in a separate sentence your proposal is a bit long dw31415 talk 12 00 28 july 2026 utc reply i can t see how this is any more neutral than the original proposal and it is much more vague if one weren t aware of the existing dispute one would have no idea from should specific ancestries be included in the language section what the question is about whereas with the original i get a pretty good idea of it bryan henderson giraffedata talk 14 44 28 july 2026 utc reply should we change x to y is neutral and brief enough whatamidoing talk 18 47 28 july 2026 utc reply references horrocks geoffrey 2013 greek a history of the language and its speakers p 208 isbn 978 1118785157 though the anatolian plateau inland had begun to come under the influence of this dominant culture only after alexander s conquests the descendants of indigenous peoples such as the lycians pamphylians sidetians isaurians pisidians lycaonians carians lydians phrygians and cappadocians as well as immigrant groups of celts goths jews and persians were also fairly well hellenized by the 6th century script for opening rfc s edit latest comment 24 days ago 1 comment 1 person in discussion i ve created a script that can be used to open and appeal rfc s among other things see user billedmammal discussion billedmammal talk 10 38 28 july 2026 utc reply rfc process question edit latest comment 11 days ago 7 comments 3 people in discussion at talk vladimir lenin an rfc was opened myself and another editor pointed out that there was no proceeding discussion on the topic and a few other editors made short votes then the opening editor withdrew the rfc but did so by completely removing the rfc comments and creating a new discussion over it is that proper procedure i feel like the closed discussion should have been retained but i m not sure how to put it back without removing later additions or messing up attribution someonedreaming talk 16 43 9 august 2026 utc reply someonedreaming wp rfcend says to end an rfc manually remove the rfc tag from the talk page legobot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run when legobot automatically ends an rfc because of its age it will remove the rfc tag if you are also closing the discussion you should do this in the same edit it says nothing about removing comments by contrast wp tpo says the basic rule with exceptions outlined below is not to edit or remove others posts without their permission i don t think any of the exceptions apply furthermore wp redact says if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment changing it should be avoided red rose64 talk 18 49 9 august 2026 utc reply okay that s what i thought how do i fix the talk page then someonedreaming talk 20 38 9 august 2026 utc reply someone needs to restore the prior discussion comments but not the old rfc tag they can be boxed up with discussion top or similar templates they can even be restored straight to the archives the main point is simply that they ought to exist be visible if someone wants to know what the prior discussions were on that talk page whatamidoing talk 02 14 10 august 2026 utc reply someonedreaming are you aware that there is no requirement for any prior discussion i know that sometimes people post comments like like there was no wp rfcbefore but a that section doesn t say what they think it does b nothing on the entire page says there has to be any such prior discussion and c even if it did it wouldn t be a valid reason for ending an rfc whatamidoing talk 19 29 9 august 2026 utc reply yes i know it s not required and i did not say that they should end the rfc just that they might want to consider prior discussion in the future it was the person who opened the discussion who chose to end it which i think counts as the question may be withdrawn by the poster under wp rfcend someonedreaming talk 20 37 9 august 2026 utc reply yes the op is allowed to end an rfc early this is because we want them to admit defeat early whenever that happens to be relevant prior discussion has many advantages but it s not always the right approach whatamidoing talk 02 13 10 august 2026 utc reply editor edit latest comment 5 days ago 7 comments 2 people in discussion davidbrownid is refusing to comply with wp rfc specifically present a neutral question for their rfc perhaps some other editors can talk sense into them the rfc process cannot be used to demand changes and to waste the time of editors they chose to ignore instead of resolving the issue stephenmacky1 talk 13 05 13 august 2026 utc reply stephenmacky1 i agree with the comments there the problems with that rfc question are a lack of clarity rather than neutrality rather than saying that this is a waste of time maybe you could figure out why the requested factual changes aren t being made and either make them if they re justified or explain why they re wrong e g if it s just one source that says that and multiple others say the opposite whatamidoing talk 16 45 13 august 2026 utc reply true well to be honest it was a misunderstanding the attitude of the editor who started the rfc did not help either when one starts a rfc it should be clear what is to be discussed stephenmacky1 talk 18 34 13 august 2026 utc reply i agree because purely as a practical matter if you re not clear about the point of the discussion it s unlikely that you ll get any useful responses not you specifically of course but anyone starting any discussions including rfcs whatamidoing talk 20 09 13 august 2026 utc reply as i correctly suspected it seems that this editor is not interested in input and only wants to impose their point of view in this edit they collapsed all comments including yours as spam and iq below 60 which is also a personal attack if this escalates further i will file a report at wp ani stephenmacky1 talk 11 05 15 august 2026 utc reply huh the account isn t even a month old and they ve already found collapsing templates does this article have a history of new accounts making this same proposal it might be someone s idea of a wikipedia clean start whatamidoing talk 19 58 15 august 2026 utc reply only ips have made such proposals as far as i know i have checked the archives at talk ivo andrić and there was another rfc from 2015 by an ip with a banned editor being mentioned as being behind the rfc considering that the discussion occurred years ago it is hard to know if there is a connection or not stephenmacky1 talk 20 16 15 august 2026 utc reply should the rfc process be used for controversial proposed merges of miscellaneous pages edit latest comment 5 days ago 1 comment 1 person in discussion you are invited to join the discussion at wikipedia village pump policy rfc merge nominations at mfd favifake talk 16 02 16 august 2026 utc reply faq at the top of this page edit latest comment 18 minutes ago 25 comments 7 people in discussion moved from user talk s marshall hi you didn t explain your revert and last time you did post a link but it is unclear why you chose that link because it appears to be irrelevant please explain thanks polygnotus talk 09 12 19 august 2026 utc reply hi it s not an essay it s a talk page header the number of users who object to it or think it s disputed is one 1 you please don t edit war to put on a tag that only you support s marshall t c 09 23 19 august 2026 utc reply neither of us have asked all wikipedians so we have no clue how many support including that tag there or not it is an essay in the sense that it contains advice and or opinions of one or more editors a faq is intended to provide an extra explanation of the page it belongs to a faq cannot introduce new rules based on one persons opinion without consensus its either unofficial and then it should probably be a userspace essay or at the very least tagged with the essay template or its official and then you need consensus and people should generally follow it a faq can explain consensus but not create the illusion of it out of thin air based on one person s opinion in this case this faq contains incorrect statements and it contradicts the page it belongs to do you see the problem polygnotus talk 09 29 19 august 2026 utc reply there s been text in that faq about non neutral questions for a very long time i objected to the previous text because it was flippant and inappropriate so i went to the talk page and discussed it and agreed compromise text you could do that if you wanted s marshall t c 09 38 19 august 2026 utc reply all three statements are true but i do not understand how they are relevant there s been text in that faq about non neutral questions for a very long time i have never understood the false belief that on wikipedia old problems cannot or must not be solved while new ones can i went to the talk page and discussed it and agreed compromise text but it would ve been better if you had removed it because the problem isn t flippancy the fact that it was so flippant actually made it more obvious that it was wrong you could do that if you wanted see wp own polygnotus talk 09 43 19 august 2026 utc reply apologies if i am missing something i am rather tired but i also still don t understand the editsummary you used here i get that it refers back to the previous editsummary which contains a link but i don t understand what part of the section it refers to is relevant polygnotus talk 09 47 19 august 2026 utc reply questions for the floor am i violating wp own by not allowing polygnotus to label wt rfc faq with essay does wt rfc faq in fact have consensus i say no and yes respectively polygnotus view is opposite your thoughts please s marshall t c 11 23 19 august 2026 utc reply assuming i am part of the floor 1 either i explained it badly or you misinterpreted but that wasn t what i was trying to say 2 only god knows and she isn t telling us i note that you again have not answered the questions and you haven t responded to the most interesting things i wrote it is rather difficult trying to understand your pov if you consistently refuse to explain it so we are in the awkward situation that you ve been repeatedly undoing improvements without giving a valid reason and you do not understand my pov and i do not understand your pov polygnotus talk 11 28 19 august 2026 utc reply you want to be able to summarily close and delist rfcs if you don t approve of the question and i don t think you should be able to do that you re not the rfc police understand my pov now s marshall t c 16 54 19 august 2026 utc reply 1 no violation looks like standard wp brd to me dw31415 talk 11 46 19 august 2026 utc reply dw31415 yeah no one claimed that to be one dude is just wasting our time polygnotus talk 11 53 19 august 2026 utc reply hi polygnotus good to see you again please let s not rehash whether the current page and faq has consensus it would be better i think to hash out if how an rfc can be procedural close d dw31415 talk 12 04 19 august 2026 utc reply dw31415 yeah i missed you guys i have the rfctracker script installed and quite a few unnecessary rfcs get closed which saves the community time it shows the top5 most recent rfc tagged edits in the sidebar below everything else which is convenient if you want to keep an eye on them for an example of an rfc being closed see here if an impasse of a sufficient size has not been reached then we should use the less expensive wp 3o options available to us polygnotus talk 12 29 19 august 2026 utc reply 1 no polygnotus reference to wp own was ingermane on the other hand your phrasing by not allowing polygnotus to has shades of ownership a non ownership description of your editing would be by removing essay 2 that s a big question we normally presume there is consensus just because the text is there in the face of every wikipedian s ability to change it it would be more appropriate for someone to challenge the presumed consensus by making a specific objection to something here so i am going to s...
|
