User talk:asilvering

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Draft:Brandsymbol

Hi,

I am attempting to create a page for Brandsymbol, but I got a notification that it was deleted by you. I want to create a page for it without it being advertising. Other places like Addison Whitney and Brand Institute have pages, and I would like to create something similar.

How can I do that? and how can I make the page not seem like an advertisement?

I am working on a new draft. It would be great if you could review it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.208.21 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Now that voting is over, I wish to thank you for reviewing all the candidates' AfD records. Your hard work is greatly appreciated! starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #96597

would it be possible for you to review and action this request? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If I respond with "leave a comment", is that one of the green comments or a blue one? I've never touched UTRS before and haven't found any non-technical docs for it. Also, this is a terrible present. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The blue goes to the appellant, and there is a number of templates to choose from. The green are for us to discuss by. You are welcome.😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. My first ever post to UTRS is blank. Joining you on the old and senile crew. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you just leave a comment with a recommendation- restore TPA and carry tpWP:AN, decline, ban, etc, it would be a help. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I just cannot deal with him anymore. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Deepfriedokra, can I call in a "you owe me one"? [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds scary. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing terrifying, just, uh, long. -- asilvering (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

is it really gonna take AT LEAST 6 weeks before it could be reviewed?

Draft:Utah Constitutional Sovereignity Act,2024,is the first draft that I have ever published,it says "This may take 6 weeks or more" UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 01:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably won't take 6 weeks. Most drafts are dealt with in under 24 hours; the rest are usually addressed within a week. But if yours still hasn't been reviewed by the time a week is up, yes, it might be as long as six weeks - at that point it becomes pretty random. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering,I also now have a different question, there is something that is possible,but is there a legitimate use for that?namely:Go to an Article,press move,then under "new title:"there is a box,where you press and scroll,and one of the options is to convert it into a user page,like,annexing an article for yourself.... UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. It sounds like you're talking about the page move interface? You can move pages from one namespace to another. So for example, if someone asks for an article to be undeleted so they can work on it, I will undelete it and then move it to that editor's userspace so they can do that without it being deleted again before they're finished. -- asilvering (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Chrishantha Abeysena

cc: @Dan arndt:

Chrishantha Abeysena just sworn in as the new minister of Science and Technology, therefore the subject pass WP:POLITICIAN. However, I object this particular draft on the grounds of WP:UPE. I raised my concerns in this SPI and with this admin. A couple editors create bios of newly elected MPs, I would rather let such genuine editors create the article instead of dodgy editors. Regards, Chanaka L (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Published to mainspace immediately after I declined the G11, I see. Not a great look. -- asilvering (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Chanakal:, it's annoying when individuals use Wikipedia to promote themselves - requires an independent editor to create the article not the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Chanakal, @Dan arndt, and asilvering: It's likely that a recently sworn in politician would pass a WP:BEFORE search a few hours after the swearing in. If so, in that situation, I often do a "tag-and-release." Put up the needful cleanup tags (which almost invariably include {{sources exist}}), and otherwise let the article be...unless the UPE reverts the tagging without improving the article, which is objectively problematic. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment, @I dream of horses: the individual created the draft on 9 October 2024, the election held on 14 November 2024 with the swearing in of elected members on 21 November 2024. The individual was clearly attempting to use Wikipedia at the time of creation as WP:SELFPROMOTION. Dan arndt (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dan arndt sigh I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dan arndt:, @I dream of horses: I believe there is a UPE operation going on in the background. Here are my observations,

• Articles: Prasad Katulanda, Thushara Perera, Draft:Chrishantha Abeysena. All three are Sri Lankan medical doctors.
• One account, one article MO: All three accounts never have created a second article. This way they are evading SPI scrutiny.
• Bullet form texts: initial version of Abeysena.
• Bolding common terms.
• Extensive publication section (copying from Google scholar?)
• Magical appearing of head shot photos. portrait of Katulanda vs portrait of Perera vs portrait of Abeysena (deleted now). Looks like they have learned to Flickr-wash in Perera and Abesena instances.

User:Pharaoh of the Wizards have created Krishantha Abeysena yesterday, though it seems Chrishantha Abesena is the more common spelling. Can we now reject the Abeysena draft as an article already exists? Folks, also kindly keep an eye on new articles on Sri Lankan doctors as well. Regards, Chanaka L (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You might try SPI again with this new account. The last one was declined because the data was stale, but Drneuroscience won't be stale to Prof. Chrishantha. -- asilvering (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Will do. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Barre Center for Buddhist Studies

Question: is there any newspaper coverage?

Response: While there are the substantial profiles in magazines, I don't believe there is anything quite so extensive about the Center itself in a newspaper article. That is, it's not clear that there has been any major "news" about the Center that has occurred in the 30ish years of its operation.

The closest I can find is references to BCBS in newspaper profiles of people who are somehow connected to the Center:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7F4lAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA11&dq=%22Barre+Center+for+Buddhist+Studies%22&article_id=2630,1253722&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinNakjuaJAxW95ckDHfmjEccQ6AF6BAgIEAI

https://books.google.com/books?id=-V4lAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA16&dq=%22Barre+Center+for+Buddhist+Studies%22&article_id=535,3318393&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinNakjuaJAxW95ckDHfmjEccQ6AF6BAgHEAI

https://books.google.com/books?id=BPdkAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA77&dq=%22Barre+Center+for+Buddhist+Studies%22&article_id=645,1301186&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinNakjuaJAxW95ckDHfmjEccQ6AF6BAgKEAI

https://books.google.com/books?id=6l4lAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=%22Barre+Center+for+Buddhist+Studies%22&article_id=1048,1058211&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinNakjuaJAxW95ckDHfmjEccQ6AF6BAgJEAI Stephentroy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, bummer. I was hoping there would be come kind of mention in a mainstream news outlet, since it would be easier to determine whether that met the guidelines at WP:INDEPENDENT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, independence is indeed a concern! BCBS has no relationship to Tricycle, Lion's Roar, Inquiring Mind, Buddhistdoor Global, or the Journal of IABS. But since they all exist within the same broad industry, it's not clear they are independent in the relevant sense.

One of the most independent sources I can find would be this transcript for the radio show, "On Being": https://web.archive.org/web/20150906155355/http://www.onbeing.org/program/transcript/7711 . The mention there doesn't amount to much, so I didn't use it for the text of the draft (though, interestingly, the relevant section is already cited in Abigail Washburn's wiki page).

It may also be relevant that you can view BCBS on Propublica and Lenz Foundation. The latter has enough information that I've added it as a citation to the draft.

Does any of this help? Stephentroy (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've spent a bit more time looking into the sources on the draft, and it looks to me like the only one that is fully independent and also significant coverage is the Lion's Roar piece ([2]). So I think the better route forward for this information is to place it in Insight Meditation Society under a new section heading (as an editor with a WP:COI, you'll need to use Template:COI edit to propose the edit, rather than making it yourself directly). Then what we can do is create a redirect page from Barre Center for Buddhist Studies to that section heading. I understand that they're not the same organization, but that's fine - they're closely related enough to be covered in the same article.

Before you submit an edit request, I'd advise rewording BCBS endeavors to create a unique bridge, as I expect that will be seen as promotional language by the editor who actions the request. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, yes this is what I expected to happen, since I struggled to find the necessary sources. It's not an ideal solution, as you mention, but having a section within that other article is better than nothing! At least that will allow all the other mentions of the Center to link somewhere. Thank you for your time, your kind assistance, and the clear guidance for moving forward! I'll follow your instructions. Stephentroy (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about topic ban

I've been wondering to apply (again) to be a pending changes reviewer. Do you think I should apply even though I have a topic ban? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Block user

66.108.60.54,some distruptive editing UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean,unconstructive UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, that's from 2023. We're not going to block an IP for that. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

oh,I though the edits are from 2024,I mis-saw that UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 23:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If they were from January of 2024, that would still be really stale. We block people to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. If there isn't current disruption, we don't usually want to block. If you do find ongoing disruption, that's urgent, so please report it at WP:AIV. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I also know about this block,that came in late UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 23:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Detailed Source (16:06, 20 November 2024)

Good morning. I have drafted a detailed history and architectural summary for the existing wikipedia page, House at 230 Melrose Street. I plan to substitute a current photo of the property for the one that is displayed. I also hope to add a photo of the original owner and perhaps an undated image of the house showing features that have been removed over time. I would appreciate guidance, including review of the material that I've generated if that is feasible. --Detailed Source (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Detailed Source, welcome to Wikipedia! I can't review anything that hasn't been published on the encyclopedia yet. It looks like this question is your only edit, so you may have forgotten to hit the "publish" button on a draft or in your sandbox? My advice is to simply add what you've written directly to the existing wikipedia article. If your edit is reverted for some reason, the editor who reverts it should give you a reason, which should help you understand what needs to be fixed or why it was unsuitable. If that happens and you don't understand what the other editor said, feel free to come back here and ask for a translation. Just in case, please also read WP:COI. If you have a conflict of interest regarding this building, you don't want to be editing the article directly. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Detailed Source Just a quick note from someone who edits in this area: the main reason why additions to articles such as House at 230 Melrose Street do not get accepted is that they are (or appear to be) based on personal observations, rather than reliable sources. There's a few things about buildings that can be acceptable from observation (eg basic facts such as how many windows there are), but generally one needs to cite reputable sources such as newspapers, books or academic articles. Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, what a fascinatingly ugly house. Proof that the McMansion gene was always there, just latent, waiting for its epigenetic trigger. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fascinating -- you just don't get that kind of architecture in the UK, as far as I know. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying promptly. I didn't understand the sequence of editing AFTER posting rather than before. I'll publish sometime later today.

I understand about COI and believe that the material I've prepared is factual and well-sourced, but I'll be interested to learn whether anything is contrary to WP standards. 108.26.210.215 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget to log in when you edit! -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I was able to upload 3 images, but a filter is blocking the upload of my narrative because the format is .pdf. I created this because Microsoft Word format was prohibited. I've submitted an appeal, but don't know whether it is likely to help. Is there a format I should be using instead? Detailed Source (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Detailed Source, by "narrative", do you mean the text you intend to add to the article? You simply add that directly, by clicking "edit" (or "edit source") and typing in your changes. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've left a welcome notice on your talk page that has some helpful links. You'll want to read all the ones under "getting started" before you make any other edits. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

How do I find out what is my real amount of edits

according to my main page I did less edits then my contributions special page says UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait suddenly they are the same UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

and speaking of my contributions,a lot of them are getting reverted....Particularly the ones where I was trying to enforce the policies,such as removing irrelevant talk page stuff that is not about improving an article,including one uncivil comment I removed today at Talk:United States,I do not get what I am doing wrong, UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 03:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 00:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, please stop editing others' comments and spending so much time worrying about what is on talk pages to articles you're not even contributing to. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to police each other. Find something you're interested in editing, and work on that. If you're having trouble finding something to do, let me know what kind of thing you're interested in and I'll help you find something. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah....Definitly having trouble of finding what to do....Also I have seen people remove comments (this,this,etc.) UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 01:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You say on your userpage that you're a native speaker of Russian and you're interested in finding citations, so how about you go through the list here and try to add citations to things that are missing? -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Igordavid2004 on Wellington Fund (10:07, 21 November 2024)

Buenos días Estuve trabajando con una empresa de traíding comprando criptomonedas,se generaron unas ganancias,y ahora me piden una póliza de transacción con vuestra empresa y no sé si todo esto es verdad o es una estafa --Igordavid2004 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Igordavid2004, you'll have to contact the company directly. Wikipedia has no connection to them. -- asilvering (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Riyaariyasharmars on Aditi Rathore (12:19, 22 November 2024)

I cant understand code language --Riyaariyasharmars (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Riyaariyasharmars, are you looking for H:WT, maybe? -- asilvering (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Detailed Source (21:56, 22 November 2024)

Thank you for providing guidance over the past few days. I worked in my Sandbox and generated about 3 pages of narrative with 3 embedded photos. My connection had timed out and the initial two attempts to Publish failed. I apparently succeeded on the third attempt, but don't see a way to check whether it is under review. Are you able to clarify the status of what I submitted? --Detailed Source (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not under review. If you did put it up for review, it would be declined, because there's already an article on that house - you want to be editing House at 230 Melrose Street directly, unless you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI - does this apply to you? -- asilvering (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ox1899 (14:31, 24 November 2024)

Hi there. I was wondering where I could find a shortened guide to copy editing? I've had a look at the main page and its all a bit overwhelming. --Ox1899 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ox1899, welcome to wikipedia! Do you have previous copy editing experience, or are you new at it entirely? -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

New to it entirely. I've had copy editing suggested as an entry level introduction to editing, but there's so much to take in on the help page. I've found sources for a couple of pages, but thats all I've done. Ox1899 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, my suggestion is that you adopt a particular backlog to work on. There's a big container category full of backlogs at Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue. Some of these are more technical edits that are quick but require learning some particular new wiki-skill, but if you're game to try edits that might take a little longer, many of these are basically pleas for someone else to rewrite a lot of an article. It's way more "involved" than normal professional copy editing, but since you're not a pro, you won't have that hangup and you can just dig in as you please. (I promise, this is a strength!)

Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup is one of those that I think is particularly good for newbies to work on (some basic instructions on my userpage). Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention will have a lot of articles marked as "plot too long" that need the plot summary to be condensed, which you can do whether you've read/watched the article subject or not. Category:Articles with a promotional tone might be a bit overwhelming, but you can also rest assured that basically anything you do to those articles will be an improvement. In all of these cases you don't need anything other than the writing/reading skills you already have, but WP:WTW might be a useful one to read.

There's a simplified version of the Manual of Style at WP:SMOS. Most of this isn't that important for you as a new editor - you'll learn how the MOS works by watching various gnomes and bots come by to fix up the pages you've edited. The only thing you really need to keep in mind that isn't intuitive is WP:ENGVAR. Basically, don't change other editors' dialect, because it drives people crazy.

Happy editing, and feel free to ask me if you have any other questions! -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks so much for this. Ive added the main points to my user page and will start going through them. Much appreciated. Ox1899 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You got me...

 Self-trout at this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If that hadn't already been a redirect, I'd have made it one, haha. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for you helpful explanations regarding my Teahouse request! Therguy10 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the article! By the way, how are you finding that Suggested Links task on your homepage? -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Oh thanks, even if it doesn't work out at least I'll get some extra practice editing! :) I'm not sure I quite understand your question...Are you referring to the 2017 Southern Thailand Floods article? I'm not sure how much this answers your question, but on my homepage I had an "easy" filter selected to see articles to edit, and then something about suggested links to confirm. It was one of my suggested edits I think.

[This article in particular, if I remember correctly, had me confirm some links that a bot thought was correct. (I normally try to avoid the copyedit tasks as I'm never sure if I copyedit right) Upon viewing the article, I found a bunch of errors that just drove me crazy lol. As you saw I went through the first half and fixed it up, and I hope to finish the second half soon.]

If that wasn't your question just please rephrase it for me. I just don't understand I'm sorry :/ Therguy10 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That was my question, and your answer was very helpful, thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For putting together a varied list of areas new Nigerian editors can focus on. CMD (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it helps... -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment at AN

I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but this uses a slur and I would appreciate it if you would consider amending or self-reverting it. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Question from Fantasticdukes (13:27, 27 November 2024)

Can I ask why did we have a story of a tribe in West Africa black African race ODUDUWA was an African Yoruba man and he never came from MECCA, please edit this false narration my ancestors from Ile IFE are not from mecca. --Fantasticdukes (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

HI @Fantasticdukes, I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. In any case you will need a reliable source to propose any changes to wikipedia articles. Can you tell me what article needs editing, and provide a source? -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Content from a deleted article

Hi! As you've recommended in your closing statement to try "writing about it in relevant parent articles" could you copy the contents of the deleted article into my userspace? There were several good sources there that I intend to use. Thanks. Alaexis_¿question? 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis, you'll find it at User:Alaexis/Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994). Cheers! -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

G11 in draft space

Hi, Asilvering, how are you? Could you expand a bit on your G11-decline edit summary here for me? Because I know it's in draft space, but also know that it's unambiguous spam, and am pretty sure that G11 applies in draft space as elsewhere (does it not?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers WP:G11 applies in draftspace too, yeah, but since draftspace is where you're supposed to work on articles if you don't know what you're doing, you have a COI, etc, the bar for deletion there as G11 should (imo) be a lot higher than what we'd apply in mainspace. Actually, I wouldn't call this one unambiguous spam, either, since the "Further reading" section with links to actual news articles rather than spam links implies to me that the editor who created it really is trying to make a Wikipedia article. In draftspace I'd rather err on the side of not biting the newbies, especially for articles that are being submitted to AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2024

Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325 Online events: New: Women who died in 2024 | Religion Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here Tip of the month: Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Yellowfrogmmmm (20:05, 30 November 2024)

how common are mistakes in wiki --Yellowfrogmmmm (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Very common. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gaming Benni

Hi, you reverted my CSD for this draft. I'd like to say the draft was edited by a user who is blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing including promotion. The draft itself doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability and reads as if the creator of the YouTube channel or someone with close relation to the YouTuber made the page, which seems likely given the channel only has 17,000 subscribers, doesn't have any kind of external news sources as it relies solely on primary sources, being videos from said YouTube channel. I don't think this draft qualifies for having a page on this wiki, and it was already denied twice for the reasons I've listed above. jolielover♥talk 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jolielover, it's a draft; we don't care if drafts are notable or not, and we certainly don't delete them simply for failing AfC review. If the IP who created this is the blocked editor, and that blocked editor doesn't succeed in being unblocked, the draft will eventually time out and be deleted via WP:G13. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jolielover I will add that all of the "G" CSD criteria apply to drafts, but G11 (unambiguous promotion) has to clear a higher bar to get speedily deleted. Personally, I only G11 drafts I check for copyright violations. Gaming Benni wouldn't qualify. The fact the editor was blocked is irrelevant unless they were evading the block at the time the draft was created, which would be another reason to speedily delete a draft. You could nominate the draft for MfD, but really, that's only done if someone submits and resubmits a non-notable draft to the point where deletion is less BITEy than keeping the draft around for six months*; the option to reject a draft (instead of decline it) has greatly reduced the need for this.

*I'm talking about a lack of taking a hint which would require either paid editing or a level of hyperfocus seen only in the neurodivergent. It doesn't happen very often. It didn't happen very often even without a "reject" option. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Milan the Leather Boy

Last time I looked, which was just a few days ago, the deletion of the Milan the Leather Boy article was a "soft delete" (whatever that means). As the primary author of the article, I was able to post a long comment. Now, all of that is gone. So, I guess it is now a "hard delete", or what? Shocking Blue (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shocking Blue, you posted a comment on the AfD four days after it was already closed, despite the "please do not modify it" message, so I've reverted that comment. You're free to repost it if the article is deleted again. "Soft" deletion means, as it says in that same message, that editors can request the article's undeletion. Since I take your comment to be a request for undeletion, I have undeleted the article. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Weird pending revisions

Hello! I just accepted an edit you made to the Teahouse (which is under pending changes atm). I thought it would be because someone non-autoconfirmed had made an edit earlier, but the Teahouse history doesn't think so. I thought pending changes was grouped in with admin superpowers – any idea why it wouldn't let your edit through? This of course makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things, but I'm curious and procrastinating, so... Perfect4th (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Er, good question. It definitely should not be requiring anyone who is autoconfirmed or higher to have their edits checked, and I see absolutely no reason why this is happening. I'll see if I can't find someone who can figure this out. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm, it's working fine now, so my guess is that Sohom clicked on the link to review the previous changes, then I posted my reply, then Sohom hit the button to review the change - so the system (correctly) decided that mine hadn't been approved and you had to do it instead. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What, you mean the system isn't omnipotent yet? Thanks for looking into it! Perfect4th (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Randomuser89 (20:48, 2 December 2024)

Can I save my draft without publishing it? If so, how? --Randomuser89 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randomuser89, welcome to Wikipedia! "Publish" and "save" are the same thing - wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress that we edit live. If you don't want to make edits on a page in mainspace for whatever reason, you can create a draft through WP:WIZARD. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Celebwikibio (23:36, 2 December 2024)

Can you help my biography get approved --Celebwikibio (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, @Celebwikibio, sorry. You'll need references that show that the subject of your article meets the guidelines at WP:GNG. If you have references that satisfy these criteria, then yes, I can help. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Celebwikibio (23:36, 2 December 2024) (2)

approve this for me https://w.wiki/CGym --Celebwikibio (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't, since you have not submitted it for review. But if you submit it in its current state, it will be declined, or perhaps rejected. Please have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeat behaviour

Hi @Asilvering I hate to bring this to you again but the same user has made another request for an unban 15 minutes after you rejected the current one for the same behaviour that got them banned in the first place. I sincerely don't see anything changing with them unless they're completely banned from Wiki for the 6 months or for it to be extended further as they're showing no signs of change and repeating the same request over and over wasting admin time. Galdrack (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't let yourself get bothered by a blocked editor - they can't edit anywhere other than their own talk page, so they'll completely disappear from your life if you just unwatch it and unsubscribe from any threads on it. As far as wasting our time goes, WP:RFU is as voluntary as anything else on here, so don't worry about people wasting our time. I suspect we're getting close to giving the standard offer, anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ruefrex1 (15:10, 4 December 2024)

Hi, can I update a wiki page about me? --Ruefrex1 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ruefrex1, we'd rather you didn't. Instead, please go to the article's talk page and use Template:Edit coi to suggest changes. Have a look at WP:COI while you're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Dachuna

I noticed you closed this discussion without any explanation after participating in the discussion itself. The proposed deletion was opposed by a number of users none of whom were persuaded by arguments put forward as far as the discussion indicates. Can you explain the decision please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim, the comment you link to as "participation" doesn't take any position about the outcome of the AfD. As I said then, it was an attempt to get the discussion back on track. That kind of comment is normal for AfD closers to make. As for the decision, there was broad consensus for redirection before it was relisted (see comment immediately before the relist, which I agree is an accurate representation of the discussion), and, thereafter, unanimous agreement on a target. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfD page specifies 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus', you don't meet that criteria. My perception that you were unduly involved is reinforced by your participation in the nominator's AN thread, where you participated along side the nominator's bully squad whose behaviour caused me to withdraw my participation in the deletion discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking for people to provide sources is not participation in the deletion discussion. You also weren't bullied: you were called to account for being rude and dismissive and then doubled down on that approach. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim, if you are sure I count as WP:INVOLVED, please take it to WP:XRV, since I really don't think it counts as "involved" to observe that a deletion discussion participant's behaviour is unhelpful and to try to push it back on track. I don't think you should take it to WP:DRV, because I don't think there's a realistic hope of the redirect outcome being overturned, and XRV seems the better place to me for "involved or not". -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you clearly realise 'involved' is kind of a fuzzy concept with ambiguities and room for manoeuvre, and so any attempt to offer scrutiny for this 'involved' judgment would put the subject at the mercy of the 'who has the most pals' type of Wikipedia 'consensus' & potentially something akin to the mob behaviour on that AN thread; but why should we go through all that? The statement 'has not participated in the deletion discussion' surely pre-empts this type of wikilawyering. It doesn't matter if you or Voorts can plausibly present you as uninvolved, as clear matter of fact you DID participate in the discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe my comment was any more involved than a relist comment would be, and those are fine. If XRV finds I'm in error, I'll take the trout for it and work to get a better sense of what is and isn't appropriate as far as closer comments go. But if you think our consensus processes are "mob behaviour", I'm not going to accept that correction from you specifically, since I'm not convinced you're a good source of advice on how our consensus-based processes work. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim the nominator's bully squad Deacon, that is a blatant personal attack. Please strike it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they are always or generally mob behaviour, but they can become like that when there is personal conflict or some other wider issue. Back to the main point, I want to be as sure as possible that you are actually following the logic here and not getting distracted by side stuff. Whether or not you are 'involved' is a side-issue. So is my knowledge of 'how our consensus-based processes work'. Why not just answer a few Yes/No questions? None of them have anything to do with being 'involved'.

1. Doesn't WP:AFD at Wikipedia:CLOSEAFD say that closing admin should be one who, and I quote, "has not participated in the deletion discussion"?

2. Did you not participate in the deletion discussion?

3. Did you not close the deletion discussion?

Am I missing anything? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how whether I'm involved or not is the side issue. It's the issue. The answer to 1 and 3 is yes, and the answer to 2 depends on whether you believe I'm involved or not. My position is, no. Yours is evidently yes. I contend that my "participation", such as it was, in that deletion discussion does not rise to the level of "participation" that makes a closer too involved to close it. If I am wrong, and it does rise to that level, then I would also contend that relisting a discussion makes a closer too involved to make the final close, which is absolutely not the current practice at AfD. If there is community consensus that this kind of comment is involvement, it's at odds also with WP:INVOLVED, which states that One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. So there would need to be some wider community discussion to confirm that your understanding is the correct one, and some policy that needs revising, at least as I see it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no special Wikipedia definition of 'participate' that differs from standard English, you posted in the conversation, simple as that. The AFD page actually lists involvement separately from participating, presumably just to prevent this kind of nonsense. Honestly, on the back of your wee pal Voorts trying to criticise me for 'doubling down' here you're coming out against straightforward English and logic to legitimise what I'm 80%+ sureconfident you already realise was some casual & clumsy decision making, claiming that you are prepared to accept basic logic and English only if you some randos gathered on an internet page tell you should! It's your lucky day though, as funny as all this is, why would I think that a 'trout' would ... could fix that way of thinking? Rhetorical question there, don't need to answer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone else reading this, I'll happily clear up that 80% confidence failure: when I saw your first message about participating, I thought "shit, did I? I could have sworn I didn't find time to do any research on it"; then I opened and skimmed the AfD, went "huh?", then came back to your first message, clicked through to the exact edit you linked, and said, out loud, "you're fucking kidding me". So, no: my positions held here are held quite earnestly and are not me trying to cover up some kind of casual & clumsy decision making. If you think that's wrong and you want it corrected, your route is XRV. If you don't think it's wrong or don't want it corrected, what you're doing here is sealioning. That would be disruptive and unacceptable conduct, and as such I'd advise you to stop. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, there is no need for further chat here, I understand your stance, I've posted about the matter elsewhere, and regard the move request as resolved. I looked at the line 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus' as an attempt to rule out the fuzziness and ambiguity of 'involvement' and I assumed that the line was there so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it, and I found the repeated elision of 'participation' and 'involvement' frustrating. The conversation has revealed that you do not interpret it that way, and I assume from your knowledge and standing that others are in practice interpreing this similarly. I've posted on the AFD talk page, I don't think any other course would do any good as I think the text is insufficiently unambiguous and should be clarified irrespective of what any ad hoc discussion about practice might reveal. Also, I removed my earlier post as it was clear on reflection that it will not do anything but extend a pointless back and forth, neither of us want to be wasting time doing that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The proposed deletion was opposed by a number of users none of whom were persuaded by arguments put forward as far as the discussion indicates. Not that AfD is a vote... But "A number of users" implies something other than the reality of the situation. Two people (yourself and the person you canvassed) voted "oppose", aka keep, and a third voted keep. Sure they won't persuaded, but I count 8 redirect votes, and a delete vote. I'd say none of the 9 people who voted something other than keep seem to have been swayed either, especially considering most of those folks voted after the two "oppose" votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this is why I suggested XRV over DRV, which would probably just focus on that and ignore the rest of the question. Further discussion on this is now at WT:AFD. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Joke about mass murder

Blood-curdling, no? Tamzin raises grave concerns (The second part of the thread.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually saw that before I saw the unblock request, lucky for me, so I was appropriately prepared and spent less time going "wtaf" at my screen. Back in my day (harrumph), teenage edgelords had to use Geocities or LiveJournal for that kind of thing. Much less reach, but also fewer volunteers wandering around with banhammers. One hopes they'll grow out of it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the memories. I used to have a website on Geocities. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, Tamzin, and asilvering: Personally, but albeit without knowing much context, I would've left whether or not it was a hoax to User:Emergency. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Afraid they don't determine hoaxes and I'm sure Tamzin took care of that when she deleted the thing. She has a lot of experience with this sort of mess. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, @I dream of horses, not quite that level of thing. Definitely not real, just not... good. -- asilvering (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, asilvering: I think User:Emergency contacts a psychiatrist on call who would be better able to evaluate whether or not it's a hoax than we are. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Tamzin:, the prime mover. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: The hoax did not threaten any act of violence. It described an alleged act of violence in the past and alleged copycat attacks, all of which were obviously fictitious. If there had been a threat of violence, I would have reported to emergency@, as I have in the past when I've seen such threats, but there wasn't one. Still, you're welcome to report if you'd like. I can send you the deleted copy over Discord if you want to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin Thanks for the cognitive interpretation. For the record, I received an email from someone else that they had emailed emergency@. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

chacun à son goût -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For awesome, saint-like patience above and beyond the call of awesomeness in dealing with Butternutsquash911 bruh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

We at the Wikipedia

do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. --MenInBlack -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a block appeal for unsuitable username, where in desperation a new user had picked a long phrase about usernames all being taken, been blocked, and attempted others such as 友马马, which Yamla received with approximately zero humour. I found it amusing, since I have not yet fully assimilated this part of wiki-culture, and that is why I shall never ask for global renamer permissions. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thelifeofan413 (17:50, 6 December 2024)

I am wondering if https://nashvillehistoricalnewsletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mcelwee.jpg is copyright-free? --Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thelifeofan413, impossible for me to tell with nothing other than a link to the image. What's the source say about it? -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That crop comes from the Nashville Historical Newsletter, which is based on this 1887 photo (or a black and white version like this from the TN legislature). I'm not an expert on copyright so I can't tell with certainty when that collage was first published, but I'd guess it's public domain based on the date and the near-certainty it was published in a leaflet or exhibited in before 1929. The image we have in Samuel A. McElwee is clearly a derivative of the collage photograph if that's of any relevance. Urve (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Urve! I'd go with "collage was published in 1887", since that's the date MSTU have in their metadata and it looks like something that was stuck on a wall somewhere. Which would indeed mean copyright-free, unless some other talk page stalker wants to show up and tell us that "it was on the wall of the state legislature" doesn't count as "published". -- asilvering (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Thelifeofan413 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thatguatemalan on Siege of San Salvador (20:53, 7 December 2024)

how do i make a page --Thatguatemalan (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thatguatemalan, assuming you want to create an article called "Siege of San Salvador", you can simply click on that redlink and start writing. Have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before you get started. You can also start a new article by going to WP:WIZARD and following the prompts. If you go that route, the article will start out as a draft and end up in the WP:AFC process by default. Once you've submitted, let me know and I can come have a look at it. -- asilvering (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi

Thanks for the message. As I have said, I won't edit the communist state article. I just obviously too optimistic, but I really thought it would be possible to establish a working relationship of sorts (and that he would be interested in it). That was obviously not the case, and that I have to live with. I will start on my next article shortly, the Central Committee of the 3rd Congress of the League of Communists of Bosnia and Herzegovina. TheUzbek (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I expect that people who've taken a dislike to you for whatever reason, justified or not, are going to be very skeptical of your return for a while. You may never be able to convince them otherwise. All you can really do at this point is not create any more upset people. -- asilvering (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point! TheUzbek (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Drake Burroughs II (02:35, 11 December 2024)

A good editor can make an article sing! --Drake Burroughs II (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from XxJustAChillGuyxX (03:44, 12 December 2024)

Hello, I have been wondering how do you create a wiki page --XxJustAChillGuyxX (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @XxJustAChillGuyxX, welcome to wikipedia! You'll want to have a read of WP:FIRST. I'll go drop some more helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Declining G11

Hello

regarding Binaytara Foundation Cancer Center

do you think the given references of this article are sufficient and in depth to quality for a organisation article. I request to clarify, if it doesn’t fit for speedy, can we go for Afd. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Up to you. The criteria you used was G11, but that doesn't apply if the content isn't irredeemably promotional. Declining that CSD rationale doesn't have anything to do with notability really. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So glad to see prompt response. So happy. Thank you. 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Les47griffy (03:01, 14 December 2024)

Hello !!!, how do I add to an existing .....Noteworthy people....? ... --Les47griffy (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Les47griffy, it sounds like you're having trouble getting started on making your first edits? You might want to read H:INTRO. There should also be a module right next to the one you used to ask me this question that can guide you through making your first edits. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The Queen Vic

Hi,

In October, you closed a requested deletion of the article "The Queen Victoria". I think the request was a mistake, by editors who aren't familiar with the subject, and the conversion of the article into a redirect has affected roughly 300 articles that link to "The Queen Victoria" and "The Queen Vic".

"The Queen Victoria" isn't actually a fork of "Queen Vic Fire Week", but one of the main settings of the popular British soap opera, "EastEnders". The proposed deletion wasn't publicised on pages relevant to "EastEnders", so the participants in the discussion didn't understand that point.

I think the page should be reinstated. Could you tell me how best to go about doing that?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle, to be a standalone article, the topic would need to meet WP:GNG independently. It looks like this one didn't have that, so we can't turn it back into an article, unless you have sources that would show a GNG pass? But what we could do is retarget the redirect to something else that would be more helpful - is there a List of EastEnders locations-type article anywhere? -- asilvering (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably the best current target is "EastEnders#Setting", or maybe "Walford". I'm not convinced that would be the best way to go, but as a stop-gap it would certainly be better than the current target.

There are plenty of published sources that could be incorporated into the article if that would help show notability. I'm probably not the best person to do that work: I haven't watched EastEnders since 1986! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so the thing to do now is to start a discussion at WP:RFD explaining that this should be retargeted to EastEnders#Setting. You could then make a talk page post on Talk:EastEnders trying to get someone interested in gathering enough sources to spin it back out. It's better not to actually do the spinout unless someone's interested in doing that work (the stuff that was there before is still in the page history behind the redirect for anyone who wants to use it as a starting point). We should certainly fix the redirect target now, though. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders, so perhaps I'll open a discussion there with a view to working out how best to move forward. It should certainly be possible to condense the deleted page to make a subsection of "Walford#Albert_Square", for example. Regarding the redirects, would it be frowned upon to simply retarget them "boldly"? WP:RFD can be quite a slow process, in my experience. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely frowned upon - the AfD decided a target already, so you need to find a new consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the AfD decided a target, but it did so based on a false premise ("Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week") and an underpublicised discussion by a small group of editors who were clearly unfamiliar with the subject matter. Surely, fixing a mistake shouldn't be harder work than making one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

name change

i am trying to change my username Jungroup1 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• The template on your talk page explains how to do that, Jungroup1. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from GSLAWD (09:16, 16 December 2024)

I want to publish my sandbox article, could help me do that? I just created the account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GSLAWD/sandbox --GSLAWD (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GSLAWD, welcome to wikipedia! I've moved it to draft for you, and when you're ready, you can press the blue "Submit" button to put it in the reviews queue. Before you do that, you'll want to find more sources that verify the content (see WP:V) and show that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines (see WP:NORG). If you have any questions about that, you can ask me, or at WP:TEA. If you have any relationship to this fraternity, you'll have to read WP:COI and disclose that you have a conflict of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ox1899 (14:50, 16 December 2024)

Hey there, it's me again. I've had a read of your response and I've started looking through the articles with lead issues. I was wondering if there is any way that I can create a page where I can work on my edits before I put them back in to the main article? --Ox1899 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You can create a userspace draft if you like, just by typing /whatevertitleyoulike after the end of your userpage URL. But you can also just work directly in the article - that's how most of us do it! -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey! You may remember me from a little while ago when I had a Teahouse request. I have finally gotten around to writing a draft of the article. (Draft:Millennium Force's effects) It doesn't have any citations or sources or formatting or proper grammar but merely just information. You absolutely don't have to, and I don't expect you to, but you're more than welcome to take a look at the draft and let me know what you think.

This is information I considered adding to the main article, but there is simply too much of it. I'm not sure if this is notable enough or has enough information to become an article, so that's why I haven't done the "hard" work of adding sources yet.

Just reachin' out! Therguy10 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Therguy10, you've gone about it WP:BACKWARDS - start from the sources and go from there, and you'll find it much easier to write new articles or add to existing ones. We care a lot about clear sources because we want to make sure everything is verifiable, but they also help you with the exact question you have now: "is this worth adding to the article?" When a source talks about something extensively, or a lot of sources mention it in passing, that's a good indication that we ought to incorporate the information into our article.

By the way, did you know that https://themepark.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page exists? This is just the first thing I found by searching "amusement park wiki" on Google, so there may be others. Some fandom wikis are just as picky as Wikipedia about having sources, but most aren't, so you might find a home for some of what you've written there even if you don't end up fitting it into a Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that; that information is useful! I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle of both sides of this situation.

When I made the article I wrote almost everything based on sources I've found; I just never added them into the article. (Basically I didn't just write what I had in my mind, everything I stated has a source) I do however see my misstep in writing the sources later, as it will prove difficult to verify in the long-term. (I also probably added information that didn't need to be added)

And no, I've never actually attempted editing on a fandom wiki before so thank you! I've had mixed experiences with articles on there in the past but if this doesn't work out then I will definitely give it a look.

I'll work to right my wrong with the draft, as well as add sources, fix grammar and cohesion, and add more information. (If that proves difficult after a while I'll start a different draft) Thanks so very much! Therguy10 (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• by add more information I mean media/citations/sources, not just more unsourced info Therguy10 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good luck! You may also want to look at WP:TRIVIA, which deals with similar issues of weight and whether to include facts. Very simplified, if you can only find the info in a hyper-specific source, it probably doesn't belong in a broader article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Marginataen's recent edits

As I said on the admin notice board, I expect that Marginataen will be indef blocked sooner or later. I wanted to bring a couple of recent edits to your attention as the admin who unblocked him. This edit seems like a repeat of the recent date format changes that he was blocked for just recently. And the edit summary in this edit has been blanked so I can't see what it said but the log says "edit summary hidden (RD2: Serious BLP violations)". Ping Tamzin. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@HappyBeachDreams, more than 1/3 of all of your edits to this project thus far have been about Marginataen. You have no edits to any other project. At this point you're either WP:HOUNDING, an illegitimate WP:PROJSOCK, or both. Leave Marginataen alone. As you already acknowledge, admins are aware of the BLPvio - it's already redacted. If Primefac had thought that was block-worthy, Marginataen would be blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The redacted edit summary wasn't that egregious, so I never thought to look at the editor making it. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

While the redacted ES does use "he", it also has a non-sequitur reference to Denmark that makes me think it's just an autocomplete error. Haven't looked at the rest of this yet, just noting that for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Marginataen's next edit on that page refers to an error in the previous edit summary, so I'd assume your take is correct. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, yeah, these are valid date format changes. I concur that you should move on from focusing on Marginataen's edits, HBD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)