User talk:Okmrman/Archives/2024/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Okmrman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Deletion discussions
Hello, Okmrman,
You have only been editing for a few weeks and I don't think you have enough editing experience to know when redirects or articles warrant deletion. Please stop nominating pages for deletion consideration until you have more experience on the project. I don't think you know what you are doing or are familar with BEFORE. If you have questions about this, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Constestation of RfD non-admin closure
Hello.
I contest your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Holy Chao. To me, three opinions are not WP:SNOW. I request that the RfD be open for at least a week, and that another user have a look at it after that.
Therefore, I request that you undo your non-admin closure as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- sure i will let u revert it Okmrman (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please note that there were five Keep comments and no objections, not three (one did not specifically say "Keep" but that was the scope of the comment). So a snow close arguably has merit. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am also looking at the other closures at only four days. I think all these should be reopened. And, truthfully, you should be the one to reopen them, otherwise it could look like edit warring or close to it. Please do so. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- They were good closes except for the time period (although they were all bordering on Snow), so you can just leave them as they are and not accept Steve Quinn and others (including myself) to dictate your work. In a discussion about talking to you they said to someone without linking the names of the editors in order to allow them to discuss the tone and bias in this statement: "Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages.", when all should have been linked. I will do so now, thanks. ("Oakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages.") - I think that Oakman may be a misspelling of your name? Not sure about that, maybe Steve Quinn can clear up why he thinks these users are clowns and putting on a show. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: could you please provide a diff for that statement. @Steve Quinn: that's a personal attack and if once a diff is provided I find that it is not redacted I will have to take it to WP:ANI. I think an apology on my talk page would also be in order. I am not a clown show, and you need to look at my work at Discordianism and formulate another opinion. Skyerise (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's on Veverve's talk page, but please maybe not take this to ANI, especially if an apology and explanation is forthcoming. Did Steve Quinn mean this in good faith (maybe he loves clowns, some people do). Too many ANI fights exist when we should be able to talk it out amongst ourselves. Steve has maligned me at ANI recently, in several comments, and I just shake my head (trying to clear the eclipse cobwebs out). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: - about the closures - The point is that they were closed too early after only four days. I came by to ivote and those had already been closed. It could be others are coming by to ivote. So, this is really not acceptable. And this has nothing to do with influencing Oakrman's work, and trying to direct them about what to do. This is not about that. This is procedural stuff to which we should be accommodating. So, I will probably go to WP:AN and ask an admin to reopen these, because I don't want to do this for the reason(s) I stated above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's on Veverve's talk page, but please maybe not take this to ANI, especially if an apology and explanation is forthcoming. Did Steve Quinn mean this in good faith (maybe he loves clowns, some people do). Too many ANI fights exist when we should be able to talk it out amongst ourselves. Steve has maligned me at ANI recently, in several comments, and I just shake my head (trying to clear the eclipse cobwebs out). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: could you please provide a diff for that statement. @Steve Quinn: that's a personal attack and if once a diff is provided I find that it is not redacted I will have to take it to WP:ANI. I think an apology on my talk page would also be in order. I am not a clown show, and you need to look at my work at Discordianism and formulate another opinion. Skyerise (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Okmrman: I ask that all of my RfDs you closed, which were open for less than a week, be reopened by you. The reason is that the closing we premature to me, and that if it is your mistake I expect you to fix them. And it goes without saying that the closing of the reopened RfDs should not be done by you. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still stand by the closure and if you want to reopen it, go request the admins to see if it's valid or not. Considering that @Utopes, a more experienced person active in RfD closed some of your discussions himself, I'd say that closure still holds up. Okmrman (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Closing April 5th discussions on April 7th (and even April 9th, as they have been since) is highly not ideal as procedure would suggest to wait for 7 days to pass, to give everyone several days to think things through. However, with so many singular RfD discussions based on incomplete reasoning and without looking for WP:Alternatives to deletion, I don't see what relisting the discussion would do at this stage besides sitting around waiting for the proverbial snowballs to melt in hell. Do you want all of the discussions reopened (i.e. the typos and etc), or just Holy Chao, Veverve? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Okmrman, Utopes. I just opened notified WP:AN of the problem. See the new section below on this page. Okmrman, as far as I am concerned your premature closures and your attitude of "standing by" your decision amounts to WP:DE disruptive editing.
Is it because you don't know what you are doing?---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) - I would wish all of those closed prematurely to be reopened. Veverve (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:Okmrman, Utopes. I just opened notified WP:AN of the problem. See the new section below on this page. Okmrman, as far as I am concerned your premature closures and your attitude of "standing by" your decision amounts to WP:DE disruptive editing.
- Closing April 5th discussions on April 7th (and even April 9th, as they have been since) is highly not ideal as procedure would suggest to wait for 7 days to pass, to give everyone several days to think things through. However, with so many singular RfD discussions based on incomplete reasoning and without looking for WP:Alternatives to deletion, I don't see what relisting the discussion would do at this stage besides sitting around waiting for the proverbial snowballs to melt in hell. Do you want all of the discussions reopened (i.e. the typos and etc), or just Holy Chao, Veverve? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still stand by the closure and if you want to reopen it, go request the admins to see if it's valid or not. Considering that @Utopes, a more experienced person active in RfD closed some of your discussions himself, I'd say that closure still holds up. Okmrman (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Admin noticeboard
Hello. I mentioned your user name and discussed the premature RFD closures at the Admin Noticeboard. Here is the link: [1]. This is a courtesy notice. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisting discussions
Hello. You should not be relisting a discussion more than twice, much less for a fourth time, much much less without leaving any summary as to why it's being relisted a fourth time, as you did here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Tantras. The instructions outlined at WP:RELIST are explicit in this, and is mandatory reading for closers.
On a separate note, which I was planning to ask independently, but please ensure that your standalone comments and !votes are being entered at the end of discussions, (as long as it's not a reply to a different user). I've had to move several of your !votes which were not in chronological order, due to yours being placed in the middle, usually after relist templates. Ensuring that the latest comments are listed at the bottom of the discussion makes it much easier for readers and closers to follow the timeline and parse what the current consensus is. Thank you. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk page archiving
Can you please stop messing with talk page archiving? You've disrupted dozens of talk pages with unnecessary auto-archiving configurations that were done wrong and not necessary. Automatic archiving should not be configured just because a talk page has old topics. It is for talk page that are under regular discussion that need archiving to keep size down. This is disruptive. Stop. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Okmrman, I see that despite the above notice from Ferret, you have continued to do this. You should never set up another user's talk page for archiving unless that user has explicitly asked for it to be done; and you should not set up other talk pages for archiving unless it's already been suggested and agreed. Therefore, I'm making it formal: 
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)