User talk:Sänger

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sänger S.G, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close Review Media Viewer RfC[edit]

I am notifying you of the discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Media_Viewer_RfC because I see you have made a comment directly on the topic, either for or against. Please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Alsee (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close review, second close[edit]

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CIVIL[edit]

I urge you to reconsider your post about "spineless lackey" etc. It is unhelpful. Polite careful examination, and a careful reasoned *of the case* would be best. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be civil against such extreme uncivilness. They are spineless lackeys, they are active against the communities, they deserve absolutely no respect. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Civil can be hard, but on Wikipedia it wins. If I were to close the close-review I would strike your vote:
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
The matter-of-issue is the exact cause for overturning the close. Not liking the close is not a valid argument. Alsee (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do I get this right: If I just don't argue, only insert my sig with "oppose" or "support" attached to it, I will get included, if I use an argument the closer doesn't like or proclaims to be not valid, I will be discarded? That's a very strange concept of deciding what's consensus. I could as well just ask the next best admin to decide what's right, that's as far from community consensus as could be.
The closer must not weight arguments at all, that's always personal taste, especially such total ridiculous judgements about "just personal opinion" (what else?). This absolutely sucks, it's flawed from start. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how German Wikipedia works, but over here a single vote citing policy is supposed to win against ten people wanting to violate policy. We also have certain reasons that votes can (and should) be discarded. "Support because I like puppies" shows no understanding of the issue being debated here. "Support because I'm angry, but I offer no relevant argument on this issue", is personal opinion with no rationale.
Closers are allowed flexibility in how they handle a no-explanation "Support", and what weight they give it. Normally they are taken as "Support, I agree with what other people said". If other people on the same side all gave valid arguments, then that "Support" reflects valid augments. If other votes on the same side were all discarded as invalid, then a plain "Support" merely reflects invalid and discarded arguments. Or at least that's my understanding, and how that's how I'd apply it.
It can create a situation where a "Support" would be better than a "Support - invalid reason". But that would only happen if there's already strong valid support for that side.
People shouldn't vote for a close simply because they like the result, and they shouldn't vote to overturn a close simply because they dislike it. The best thing to do is actually look at the argument I gave for challenging close, and offer some calm rational argument. We allow closers significant flexibility in closing, but they need to give reasonable closes. If they go against the majority they need to have a good reason for doing so. And obviously they shouldn't make any errors. (Note that there are TWO closes at issue, two different people closed parts 1 and part 2.) You should either offer your own calm rational comment to Support or Overturn the closes, or agree with someone else's valid argument. The most notable argument is the one I gave in the close-challenge, but you can also agree or disagree with anyone's valid arguments.
Your current vote gives no indication that you even read my reason for challenging the close. A lot of the current votes share that problem. Votes that show no understanding of the issue are supposed to be discarded. If crap votes do get discarded then the people with valid votes win. WP:Civil and rational isn't just for the sake of being polite, staying civil and rational helps you win debates here. Simply striking the uncivil part doesn't add any rational argument.
Note that I have been carefully neutral, merely giving you advice on how English Wikipedia works. Partly, that is my personal dedication to doing the right thing. Partly, it is because telling you how to vote could (in theory) make things messy. Things are already too messy. Alsee (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From best to worst:
  1. Cite a policy you want enforce, which clearly decides the issue. We enforce policy, you win.
  2. Give a strong argument how and why a policy should apply.
  3. Give a strong new argument in general.
  4. Give a weak new argument, or agree with strong arguments.
  5. Vote, with no reason.
  6. Vote, with an invalid reason. Policy gives a list of reasons to discard a vote as as invalid. Alsee (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In deWP Meinungsbilder it's OK to give some short reasoning, but not necessary, discussions take place on the discussion page. Votes are counted if the voter is allowed to vote, that's has enough edits to his/her account, Decision is a vote count, for major problems it may be with a certain majority (2/3rd, 60% or such. IPs and sock-puppets are not allowed to vote.
Decisions about the validity of arguments or other rather subjective stuff are out of bounds, it's strict vote count.
♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We prohibit socks but do allow even IPs to participate. IPs are viewed skeptically, they get ignored very easily. We had two IP supports on this RfC :D
Another important part I forgot to mention.... it's not just about casting your own vote. New people show up trying to figure out what's going on, and figuring out how they'll vote. If you have a good explanation for your vote then future voters are more likely to join you. If you're too angry it can push people away. Ranting against a close just because you don't like the outcome looks particularly bad. Alsee (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your signature[edit]

Hello. It is not allowed to have external links in your signature. While I agree that super protect is basically an insult to individual projects and their admins it is not appropriate to put a link there every time you post a signature. This could be seen as canvassing. Please read our signature policy and our canvassing policy to see what I mean.

The signature policy covers external links in a signature and the canvassing policy talks about what is allowed and not allowed when drawing peoples attention to a debate. Chillum 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an internal link, it's in the wikiverse, external would be to something outside all the wikiprojects.
Regarding canvassing: It's not. It's just a hint to some very sinister things the WMF is doing against the communities, to get background information about this. I know, the WMF doesn't want this to be discussed, they didn't even mention it in the monthly meeting about MV in September, just some useless blahblah by Fabrice (and the main reason for MV was shown on the second sheet: "This was our multimedia team's first big project." It had to be implemented, come what may, as it was the first big project, and it must not be confronted with the reality. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—Given that the remedy has just been enacted, I am providing this notice to everybody who has participated in the discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page for their information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Democracy
For your tireless efforts supporting community decisions in various Wikimedia projects and disussions - Thank You! --.js (((☎))) 12:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad[edit]

Hi, you're very bad with mi, I am not a vandalism, you are lie.Néyo (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You spammed an upskirt photo, that was anything but good by photographic standards and explained nothing on regard of the subjects, across the wikiverse, probably to wank about it, so I think the conclusion, that you are a troll is not that far fetched. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

legal Contributions[edit]

Hi please stop delete my pictures and my edits about heritage drinks.. i'm interesting international heritage in the world, cuisine, cloths, monuments.. ect.

take it easy man,if i add articles in Arabic Wikipedia about "Rakia"[1] as national drink as heritage drink does not mean i used for advertising or promotion,I Write What I Like... I've been suffering harassment, and incitement and hate as free man as free blogger also in Arabic Wikipedia.. i write what i like.. take easy please. khvala, thanks --محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop spamming this bad and useless picture all over the Wikiverse just because it's yours, I would agree. The picture is blurred, out of focus, the bottle is somewhere on the edge, it's wrongly lighted, in short: it's useless for any place in any article. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to answer my question? Or are you just fiddling with nonsensical stuff in your posting?
Ah, and regarding your arab article: I don't edit there, as I don't know the language. But I've seen three of your rubbish pictures in that article, three very substandard, encyclopedic worthless, pictures, posted there out of pure vanity by you. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages consultation 2019[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case ...[edit]

the "thanks" button didn't work - I appreciate your posts with information on T&S. — Ched (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you worked, thanks for the thanks ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Pump Page[edit]

Hiya Sang. I started deleting the Flow pages on EnWiki years ago. Then I firmly negotiated the uninstall of Flow here. When I heard of the Flow RFC on Meta, I went there and ensured that result was a full uninstall. Then the biased Flow survey and the plan to restart Flow development made me decide to finally kill Flow. I opened the RFC on Commons because it was easiest big place for me to go next. I planned to keep opening RFCs on more wikis until the Foundation finally listened to the community. I was hoping you would help get a Flow-RFC opened on DeWiki. The only reason I stopped after Commons was because EnWiki+Meta+Commons was finally enough to make the Foundation listen and terminate Flow.

I worked cross-wiki to kill Flow, trying to get the Foundation to listen to the community in general.

When I have seen the Foundation ignoring consensus at other wikis, I have pushed the Foundation to listen to those wikis.

When the Foundation imposed Superprotect at DeWiki, I was on your side. And so was EnWiki. We needed EnWiki+DeWiki+Commons against the Foundation.

I opened the proposal to create a new Village Pump page here. I understand your frustration that the Foundation doesn't listen to other languages. I need the new Pump page to start pushing for change at the Foundation. I need the page to bring the message to the Director. I need the Director to tell staff to start listening to the community and start paying attention to consensus. I want the Foundation to listen to all of us. That can't happen if staff look at us all like users on Facebook. Either EnWiki is your strongest ally, or the Foundation ignores us all as insignificant 'users'.

Your !vote against the new Pump page isn't going to help the Foundation listen to DeWiki or anyone else. I hope you reconsider. Thanks. Alsee (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't. I won't push any more way of the WMF to stay monolingual, and this ins imho going in this direction. The service agency WMF doesn't deserve a special place in the wikis it's supposed to serve, they should simply go to the usual venues in a language, the projects are most likely to understand. That's no problem here, as the moloch enWP already has far too much influence on the Wikiverse because if the language bias. And this has nothing to do with FLOW, Superprotect or FRAMBAN. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaah[edit]

I've only commented at the EW-board, agree that the "form" was frightening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have deleted most of the templates and used free text instead, or is that as formalistic as it looks on first sight? I thought us Germans were the ones with the love for extreme bureaucracy ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always that bad (WP:RFPP is much easier). Hopefully, they are reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked on the talk page about the deterrent layout of the page: Excessive use of cryptic templates Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sänger&oldid=1220734979"