User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2020/May

TfD nominations

I posted this at a specific nomination (infobox comics creator), but since this applies to all your nominations and you continue with the same issues, I'll repeat it here:

In the future, the least you can do when you propose such drastic action on a template, is to provide an actual edit summary stating what you have done. This looks to much like sneaking in this proposal through the back door. The instructions for TfD are 1. "Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:" (not, put it in an existing section meant for something else, at the bottom of the talk page) and "Use an edit summary like[...]" Please make sure to follow these instructions in the future. Fram (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The default option was unfortunately locked. PPEMES (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You still aren't using edit summaries for these TfD nominations, please start doing this. Perhaps reread the TfD instructions carefully before nominating more templates for merging. Fram (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What about "suggestion"? PPEMES (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't be sufficient in any case, but not even that appears on this edit por any of the other templates you nominated for merging today. Fram (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have only been informed that edits on the template for discussion pages are required. That they are permanently required also elsewhere, such as in a template edit, would be news to me? Note that I have tried to follow the request of informing the template creator. PPEMES (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I notice now that the exact same problems have been noted by others above, and that nothing has changed; not in the quality of your nominations, not in the lack of edit summaries, not even in your idea to use "suggestion" which was already rejected. Please take this to heart before someone drags you to WP:AN and gets you topic banned. Fram (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I told you that I tried to accomodate the request by the edit summary "suggestion" when adding new nominations. None has complained over that before you did? That edit summaries are required elsewhere, such as in actual templates, would be news to me? PPEMES (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

To be more precise, the section "Twinkle gadget for XFD nominations" from 20 April discusses a mistake you again made today in exactly the same way: the section "Templates" asked you to "When you place a TfM tag on a template, could you please use an edit summary indicating that you're nominating it?" (note the "on a template", not "on the TfD daily page" request), and ""Suggestion" is pretty vague and doesn't make clear that the suggestion is actually the initiation of a formal discussion that can result in the template virtually disappearing. It needs to be explicit", and also asked you to be more careful in what you proposed for merging. Fram (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Worse, looking at you archives, this was also already asked in March as well, "Oh sorry, one more thing: using edit summaries is almost always a good idea, but when the edit concerned is a nomination for TfD, the edit summary is a must. You don't need to use the detailed summaries recommended at WP:TFDHOWTO, something as simple as "nominated for merging" would do just fine. – Uanfala (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)"

And then again in April: "Again, would you mind using edit summaries when nominating templates for merging? It doesn't take that much effort, does it? – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)"

You may consider this a final warning; if you continue ignoring the TfD instructions, then I will ask for a topic ban at WP:AN unless someone beats me to it. Fram (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not an English language expert, but was of the illusion that "Suggestion" satisfied "something as simple as 'nominated for merging'". I do add edit summaries when and where I found it called upon, such as after being informed that it was called upon on the templates for discussion pages (save for mistakes I may have committed). I observe that other users may or may not provide edit summaries generally. That this is generally required would be news to me. I have never complained on any other user for not providing edit summaries, much less gone to their user talk pages and threatened them with bringing to a topic ban.

Are we here to bring about better contents on Wikipedia or are we here to report to each other in every single edit summary of how we try to pursue that goal? I have never before come across your user account. This means that of the work I have put into Wikipedia, I have seen 0 contributions from your user account. The first encounter I have with you is that I tell me on my talk page that I am not satisfyingly reporting in edit summaries on exactly how I am trying to propose ways to improve the contents of Wikipedia that you are enjoying. Is there any gadget that be used to help me fulfill your expectations? PPEMES (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your brain. It is in the TfD rules, and was asked of you multiple times, to use edit summaries indicating clearly that you were proposing a template for merging or deletion, on the template, not on the daily TfD page (it is good practice to do the same there, making it clear that you start a new discussion). Apparently each time you understood this to mean "on the daily TfD page" despite the fact that this was not what people asked you. You have also been told multiple times, by different people, that no, "suggestion" would not do, but still you insist on proposing this yet again. How things that have been explained three or four times over the course of two months, by different people, can still be news to you, is not really clear, but it certainly isn't encouraging. Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I seem to have misunderstood that 1) the actual template for discussion was the only required location for that, and that 2) "Suggestion" sufficed. While at it, do you know where could be a good location to discuss this rule and its enforcement to the risk of topic ban for users new to the routines? I may have an opinion to share over this matter. PPEMES (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't topic ban users "new to the routine". We inform them, and again, and again, until after two months or so someone decides that enough is enough, and more drastic action is needed. The actual rule can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, the enforcement (in general or my warning specifically) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Fram (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)