ProgrammingGeek
|
| This is ProgrammingGeek's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Closing RFC
Hi, you misunderstood Roberts intention,
he argued to close the discussion in the NPOV notice board (80 km long discussion) with no consensus, not that RFC with two maps, where we voted the map to be included to the article and everybody accepted it finally (anyway the majority voted yes for inclusion, without any doubt, only two were no, (7-2) but they have to accept the community decision, so it cannot be no consensus). Recently, discussions were only made about what we should write in text under it (the illegitimate trials of the disruptive editor by WP:AN3 was discussed and finally we did not had to took the case into the ANI). Check please also recent edits and the discussions, only the text under was modifided recently, but it has no connection to the inclusion of the map. Please correct your mistake ASAP. This you should have been closed: [1]. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
- "The discussion at NPOVN appears to be just going on and on, and I would suggest that it be closed as No Consensus."
- "Please have the discussion at NPOVN closed as No Consensus"
-> This were what Robert referred, not the RFC Two maps, where the inlcusion was accepted!!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
- Thank you for closing the RfC. I would also like to understand why you concluded that there was no consensus, taking into account that seven editors supported the proposal and only two editors opposed it. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka and KIENGIR: closure reverted. Apologies. ProgrammingGeek talktome 04:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your action. I wonder why did not you choose to close it properly? I mean in accordance with the opinion of the vast majority of the editors. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- ProgrammingGeek, thank you, of course! As per Borsoka's next question, I would ask the same...
- Thank you for your action. I wonder why did not you choose to close it properly? I mean in accordance with the opinion of the vast majority of the editors. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka and KIENGIR: closure reverted. Apologies. ProgrammingGeek talktome 04:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC. I would also like to understand why you concluded that there was no consensus, taking into account that seven editors supported the proposal and only two editors opposed it. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say a proper closure would be like "The result was for the map inclusion, regarding the text written under it mostly people agreed on the version "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary (between 1200 and 1400)" which may be expanded by another consensus" or similar.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
Talk:Mike Onoja
(@ProgrammingGeek:) Hi, please this is my first time on talk page. Pardon me if i make any mistake concerning the rules.
I've been trying to publish the above article for sometime now but unfortunately, it has been rejected twice. The later rejection been that the source of the information(reference) on some activities and information of the subject wasn't provided, and where there is no available reference, such information should be removed from the article.
My reason for not referencing the information you highlighted was that majority of the details I used was from the subject's autobiography of which i thought the continuous use of the same source would not look good. I however discovered that I can insert page numbers in the reference if I'am using a particular source frequently. I'am hoping this should solve the problem and enable my article to be published. I have however referenced the various parts you requested for the source of information, but i am yet to resubmit it. Kindly advice on the best way to go about the article if there is any other correction i should make before resubmitting.
Thank you
The Signpost: 1 December 2018
- From the editor: Time for a truce
- Special report: The Christmas wishlist
- Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee
- Arbitration report: A long break ends
- Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight
- Gallery: Intersections
- From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis
Up for Signpost-Article Questions
Hi there,
Big Signpost fan and more than happy to answer questions (if you're happy to have someone who only started AfC reviewing in the latter days of ACTRIAL), so felt I should reply.
Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, brilliant. Answer the questions here at your leisure -- I might add more questions later, I'll ping you if I do. Thanks a lot! programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 20:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- ProgrammingGeek - cheers, I've answered most of the questions, I'll do the rest in the next day or two. By "new contributor" do you mean someone new to Wikipedia or new to AfC? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, New to AfC -- I'll clarify that in the question. Also, I'm asking people to have their responses in by December 20, but you wouldn't have seen that as you're the first respondant. Thanks again programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 22:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nosebagbear, on second thought I'm removing the question, it's not really pertinent to AfC. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 22:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- ProgrammingGeek - cheers, I've answered most of the questions, I'll do the rest in the next day or two. By "new contributor" do you mean someone new to Wikipedia or new to AfC? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)