User talk:Mandruss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

There is one place at Wikipedia where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults.


Why did you reopen it? El_C 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

So the close would appear in the talk page's history. As I said in my comments that you didn't hear. ―Mandruss  21:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because it was due to its length. The Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_improperly_ended is enough of a notice to editors. I fail to see why you are so enamoured with procedure, but oh well. El_C 21:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch massacre[edit]

Thanks for clearing that up, there are 11 archives so I’m sure you can understand. What was the consensus because it seems strange not to include the suspected perpetrator in the lead or infobox. IWI (chat) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: It may be an over-simplification of the discussion(s), but my nutshell understanding is that the lead should err on the side of presumption of innocence, even to the point of omitting the infobox field "Suspected perpetrator". He's named below the lead. I know this is different from some other articles, but I never attach much weight to what other articles have done unless there is a clear community consensus to treat all articles the same way. Thanks for the note. ―Mandruss  00:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That’s fair enough, although still strange to me. I mean the evidence against him is beyond damning. IWI (chat) 12:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)