User talk:L.cash.m

Twinkle and AfD nominations

In your user preferences (top right and corner of any page) there is a tab within which you can switch Twinkle on. Twinkle operated form a TW tab in your tab rack. Go into the article you wish to nominate for deletion and chose XFD form the drop down box. From there the process ought to be fully automatic. It may be necessary to turn off any pop up blocker to make fullest use of Twinkle. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add that Twinkle handles second and third nominations (etc) of the same article. They are rather hard to handle manually without a tool like this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Seems to be working great although it is tagged as third nomination instead of second -- my own fault. I'll get it fixed. L.cash.m (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It IS the 3rd one Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with your nomination, but that is irrelevant to my assisting you to make it easily. Why should we agree? Agreement is not important, it is the way we conduct ourselves that is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't emotionally agree with my own nomination, but the rationale seems to point logically in this direction upon consideration. Consider it devil's advocating on the behalf of the disenfranchised. And of course it's not necessary to agree; disagreement leads to improvement. L.cash.m (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the discussion will not attract many opinions in favour of deletion. Even were I to agree with you I would not expect the article to be deleted. I understand where you are coming from and see some virtue in your thinking, but insufficient to persuade me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, 58 minutes. I had given it another 30 in my mind. The thing about Wikipedia is that consensus building is always an interesting challenge. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be deleted either; too fresh in everyone's heads and too many invested editors. It's going to be a repeated cycle and at some point we're going to have discuss why the article keeps being nominated for deletion rather than whether it should be deleted. I'm glad that almost everyone stayed cordial. L.cash.m (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, the event was, and thus remains, notable, and there have been lasting effects. Discussion in the Canadian parliament is a substantial and notable effect. There is no limitation on the number of times an article may be nominated, but there comes a point when equine necrophilia becomes pointless. People generally remain cordial, but Wikipedia is not a kind place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We see the problem right here, then -- it's a question of what people consider important. I don't consider discussion notable unless it leads to action or is done in a very notable context; a State of the Union address for example. A Parliamentary vote in some way related to this subject matter would be notable, or a local government initiative as well. As long as this basic, and valid, debate on what constitutes notable persists, an article like this will be repeatedly nominated (and kept) until something further occurs as a result. Sad but true. At least we're good for a while. L.cash.m (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But it also has huge mainstream news coverage. Like it or not, WP likes that sort of thing. Bear in mind we have the great social experiment known as The Wisdom of Crowds which happens to produce a reasonably adequate encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, L.cash.m. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)