415:
658:
31:
366:
231:
508:- What are you talking about disruptive? Per adminact you have not answered the question on an admin act that shows favoritism. Clearly it was not about a talk page consensus, or you would have said you would post it after you get consensus and you would have done it on the talk page, and as consensus is now present why are you not posting it?
332:
611:
529:. In that case, adding a link to the new place for this conversation at the end of the move review would be needed. And, given that your reply is in the line of wanting to guess on my behavior and intentions rather than on the decision by the closer, I think our talk pages are the most appropriate place.
138:
I would be fine with placing my reply below the discussion instead of inside it. If further comments are made, then it could be continued at the related article's talk page. What I'm poised off is that I couldn't set straight a reply that misrepresented my opinion of the review, merely because of the
457:
Because my request to modify the protected page was made after a consensus was developed at this talk page. This template is expected to be used only when the agreement to make a particular change has been discussed and agreed. I'm not opposed to include your comment there, together with a link to
182:
And I only reverted because the standard is closed discussions are not supposed to be edited; part of the purpose of the closing templates is to make clear what discussion was examined by the closer to come to their conclusion, and adding things later muddles that. Below the close comments, while
86:
As User:Diego Moya was replying to a statement made directly to him, he deserve the privilege of being able to reply. However, inside the closed discussion is not the place. Within closed discussions, typo corrections, link corrections, links to follow-up discussions are seen to happen, but to
201:
well lets allow but discourage post close comments. I do them sometimes when I have the page sitting for a few hours and want to say something, but by the time I click edit, someone has closed the discussion. Having extra comments is pretty harmless, even if useless, and on the talk page
393:
Reply to post close comment of Diego: Your post close comment reinforces that you are not here to uphold process but to rather go against process, as you have edit warred to insert a comment not in the closed discussion. You did not cast a !Vote with the words
93:
If the post-close reply is short and simple, and not demanding of further response, I think it is appropriate to simply post a comment below the archive box. If it is more than that, I would suggest posting post-close comments on the talk page (in this case:
583:
So, your excuse, now, is that you were using the words you put in quotes in a non-standard fashion. That is ridiculous and makes no sense - in fact, such a practice is pretty much designed to make no sense (or perhaps to mislead). Thus, the record should be
277:: My position is not to endorse the close, nor it is to endorse that there's was no consensus about the result; that is your interpretation. My position would be equivalent to the 7th option ("don't relist, yet don't endorse either") at the
139:
timing of the close. I don't want the discussion to go archived for future reference with such misunderstanding of my position without being able to even point out that I still had something to clarify; that's why I made my
440:
What? What's the reason for not posting this comment on the page but posting his comment? I will wait until the page is unprotected to correct the record, but I do not understand the apparent favoritism you are showing.
569:, that is put in contrast with the not-so-equivalent first option, which also results in a closed discussion without a move, but doesn't endorse the outcome - i.e. exactly the intent of my not-vote at the move review.
398:, and then you misrepresnt with quotation marks statements that are not elsewhere in the instructions or your ivote, so your now recasting of your ivote is again out-of-process, and demonstrates disdain for process.
285:
page states that "endorse" and "overturn" are the only possible positions that commentators may state, so it doesn't make our position to "do not endorse that this was a proper close" something out of process.
112:
Project related discussions, such as relating to move reviews, should remain in more or less one place, not fragmented on to user talk pages, or in isolated segments on article talk pages.
116:
If this is not disagreed with, I suggest User:Salvidrim! unprotect the page, and put User:Diego Moya's post-close comment outside and below the collapsed archive box, or on the
90:
I believe it is appropriate to make post-close replies outside, below, the collapse box formatting. This makes it clear that the close was made prior to further comments.
565:" used "to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard sense"), not quotation of direct speech. I used them to mean that I was paraphrasing the 7th of the
543:
No. My reply is in direct response to yours and your evidently gross misuse of quotation marks and false claims to upholding process, while you violate process.
299:
117:
95:
263:
241:
65:
458:
wherever we continue the discussion if that happens; but you should ask for the other editors opinions to do that before placing the edit request.
206:
be better. Reverting escalates the comment into conflict. So please don't revert unless there is a real reason the comment should be removed.
183:
still missing the other point of a close (to provide a conclusion to the discussion), don't do that and are better, if still not perfect.
102:
This sort of thing has been accepted/tolerated at DRV, in several instances. I think it should be, adhering to the following principles:
674:
47:
17:
665:
38:
634:
No. I did not post it here. I posted it at the talk page of the protected page. It was moved here by an admin.
372:
237:
639:
589:
548:
513:
489:
484:
So, your now answering for MSGJ? Really. Besides as this discussion is now open the request remains unanswered.
446:
403:
211:
157:
TBH I don't much care about the validity of post-close comments, I only protected because of the edit warring.
618:
566:
278:
635:
585:
574:
544:
534:
509:
485:
463:
442:
399:
320:
307:
291:
207:
148:
188:
171:
128:
643:
627:
593:
578:
552:
538:
517:
493:
467:
450:
433:
407:
350:
324:
311:
215:
192:
177:
152:
132:
109:
The closing of a formal discussion is not intended to serve as a ban on continued discussion.
140:
570:
530:
459:
316:
303:
287:
163:
144:
80:
69:
282:
428:
345:
184:
124:
76:
525:
If you don't mind, we could continue this conversation either at our talk pages or at
106:
A closed discussion should be preserved to reflect the discussion at the time of close
622:
526:
562:
673:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
302:
because it doesn't exist, and here is where the conversation has taken place.
505:
424:
341:
275:
264:
Knowledge (XXG):Move review/Log/2016 October#New York .28closed.29
66:
Knowledge (XXG):Move_review/Log/2016_October#New_York_.28closed.29
98:), and putting pointer to these comments below the archive box.
652:
360:
225:
25:
621:
is not protected, removing from fprot request queue. —
558:
72:
421:please continue your discussion elsewhere — Martin
300:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Move review/Log/2016 October
96:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Move review/Log/2016 October
272:
87:continue discussions post-close is too much.
79:reverted, a little two-move revert war, then
8:
298:I'm posted this request here rather than at
242:Knowledge (XXG):Move review/Log/2016 October
527:Talk:New York#Requested move 19 July 2016
267:
671:Do not edit the contents of this page.
83:(the admin MR closer) page protected.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
567:Typical move review decision options
561:are quotes used for emphasis (i.e. "
279:Typical move review decision options
24:
266:, just below the ending tag, per
656:
609:
413:
364:
330:
262:Add the following at the end of
229:
29:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Move review
294:) 10:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1:
644:16:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
628:12:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
594:15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
579:14:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
553:13:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
539:13:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
518:20:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
494:14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
468:14:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
451:13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
434:13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
408:12:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
351:12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
325:10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
312:10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
216:04:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
193:00:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
178:23:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
153:23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
133:23:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
619:Knowledge (XXG):Move review
387:to reactivate your request.
375:has been answered. Set the
256:to reactivate your request.
244:has been answered. Set the
73:posted a post-close comment
694:
281:. At no point does the
296:
222:Protected edit request
669:of past discussions.
42:of past discussions.
60:Post-close comments
681:
680:
675:current talk page
432:
391:
390:
349:
260:
259:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
685:
660:
659:
653:
625:
617:
613:
612:
422:
417:
416:
382:
378:
368:
367:
361:
339:
334:
333:
268:discussion above
251:
247:
233:
232:
226:
176:
174:
168:
167:
33:
32:
26:
693:
692:
688:
687:
686:
684:
683:
682:
657:
636:Alanscottwalker
623:
610:
608:
586:Alanscottwalker
545:Alanscottwalker
510:Alanscottwalker
486:Alanscottwalker
443:Alanscottwalker
414:
400:Alanscottwalker
380:
376:
365:
359:
331:
249:
245:
230:
224:
208:Graeme Bartlett
172:
165:
164:
161:
158:
81:User:Salvidrim!
70:User:Diego Moya
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
691:
689:
679:
678:
661:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
437:
436:
389:
388:
369:
358:
355:
354:
353:
258:
257:
234:
223:
220:
219:
218:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
159:
114:
113:
110:
107:
101:
77:User:Oknazevad
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
690:
676:
672:
668:
667:
662:
655:
654:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
626:
620:
616:
607:
606:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
435:
430:
426:
420:
412:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:Do not relist
386:
383:parameter to
374:
370:
363:
362:
356:
352:
347:
343:
337:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
295:
293:
289:
284:
280:
276:
271:
269:
265:
255:
252:parameter to
243:
239:
235:
228:
227:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
194:
190:
186:
181:
180:
179:
175:
169:
156:
155:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
136:
135:
134:
130:
126:
121:
119:
111:
108:
105:
104:
103:
99:
97:
91:
88:
84:
82:
78:
74:
71:
67:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
670:
664:
614:
563:scare quotes
504:
418:
395:
392:
384:
373:edit request
335:
315:
297:
274:
273:
261:
253:
238:edit request
203:
122:
115:
100:
92:
89:
85:
63:
55:
43:
37:
663:This is an
36:This is an
584:corrected.
377:|answered=
246:|answered=
166:Salvidrim!
419:Not done:
338:— Martin
185:oknazevad
125:SmokeyJoe
118:talk page
624:xaosflux
615:Not done
666:archive
143:edits.
64:So, in
39:archive
141:WP:IAR
571:Diego
559:those
557:FYI,
531:Diego
460:Diego
381:|ans=
371:This
357:Reply
317:Diego
304:Diego
288:Diego
283:WP:MR
250:|ans=
236:This
145:Diego
16:<
640:talk
590:talk
575:talk
549:talk
535:talk
514:talk
506:MSGJ
490:talk
464:talk
447:talk
429:talk
425:MSGJ
404:talk
346:talk
342:MSGJ
336:Done
321:talk
308:talk
292:talk
212:talk
189:talk
149:talk
129:talk
379:or
248:or
240:to
204:may
75:.
642:)
592:)
577:)
551:)
537:)
516:)
492:)
466:)
449:)
427:·
406:)
385:no
344:·
323:)
310:)
270::
254:no
214:)
191:)
170:·
162:·
151:)
131:)
123:--
120:.
68:,
677:.
638:(
588:(
573:(
547:(
533:(
512:(
488:(
462:(
445:(
431:)
423:(
402:(
348:)
340:(
319:(
306:(
290:(
210:(
187:(
173:✉
160:☺
147:(
127:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.