Index
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Deletion request
Dear Ingenuity, Hello, can you delete Hamza Shaikh page then after I'll able to accepted Draft:Hamza Shaikh from WP:AFC process. Thanks ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrative panel closure at WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination)
I saw your offer on AN, and am happy to take part in this panel. How do you propose we do this? Owen× ☎ 19:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- @OwenX: once the AfD hits the seven-day mark (in a couple hours), I'll read through it and email you my preliminary thoughts. We can discuss the close from there. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Owen× ☎ 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX Um, you should not be taking part in this close Owen, since you've already decided that the article should be kept.? Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't think my participation in that DRV renders me WP:INVOLVED, and do not have strong views about the article either way. But since you raised the issue, let's take it to AN and see what others think. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX Of course it renders you involved. But I don't think it needs to go to AN, I simply think you should leave the close to Ingenuity, because if you take part and the close is anything other than Delete, Merge or Redirect then there will be a controversy that we really don't need. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. I already posted the question on AN, but will step aside for now. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks (I had already posted at AN). To be clear, I'm not accusing you of being biased, only that there clearly would be an issue if anyone decided to take it to DRV (it would almost certainly be re-opened, and we definitely don't need a fourth AfD). Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. I already posted the question on AN, but will step aside for now. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX Of course it renders you involved. But I don't think it needs to go to AN, I simply think you should leave the close to Ingenuity, because if you take part and the close is anything other than Delete, Merge or Redirect then there will be a controversy that we really don't need. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't think my participation in that DRV renders me WP:INVOLVED, and do not have strong views about the article either way. But since you raised the issue, let's take it to AN and see what others think. Owen× ☎ 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- OwenX Um, you should not be taking part in this close Owen, since you've already decided that the article should be kept.? Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Owen× ☎ 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 02:31, 8 April 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.
I have sent you an email about requesting additions and a question about a private edit filter yesterday. Codename Noreste 🤔 𝙇𝙖 𝙎𝙪𝙢𝙖 02:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirecting Where is Kate? to Catherine,_Princess_of_Wales#Health
I appreciate your effort in closing the AfD... but not leaving a redirect is not a policy based outcome, and so I've corrected it. {{R from non-neutral name}} signals that that title is disfavored, the history remains deleted, and random readers landing on that prior name are instead redirected to the much more succinct remaining section in the biography. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks, @Jclemens. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please amend the closure to enable the redirect not to get deleted. The Anome has now deleted and fully protected the redirect per your close: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=161262546. If you feel like you need to talk to The Anome about undeleting the redirect, that would be great. The redirect should be undeleted. Ping Jclemens.—Alalch E. 09:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Given that you are fine with Jclemens' reasoning, I will now restore the redirect: can you please update your closing summary to reflect this? — The Anome (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Anome What you have now restored is the whole page history and created a redirect - which suggests this was closed as "redirect" but it was not. It was closed as "delete". The redirect that Jclemens created was a delete and then redirect. As Jclemens says,
the history remains deleted
. The redirect is created after the deletion based on the assumption that someone will search this disfavoured term and want the primary article. Whether that is really a policy based outcome is unclear, but that was the intent, and not unreasonable based on the existence of a wikidata item. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)- I assume Anome made a mistake here, so I've re-deleted the page and undeleted the correct revisions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. And thanks for reading your way through all that AfD too! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume Anome made a mistake here, so I've re-deleted the page and undeleted the correct revisions. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Anome What you have now restored is the whole page history and created a redirect - which suggests this was closed as "redirect" but it was not. It was closed as "delete". The redirect that Jclemens created was a delete and then redirect. As Jclemens says,
- Yes. Given that you are fine with Jclemens' reasoning, I will now restore the redirect: can you please update your closing summary to reflect this? — The Anome (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Question about your AFD closure
As a matter of curiosity, why did you end up closing Where is Kate? as delete, instead of a merge. Especially with your comment "most people felt that, although there is significant coverage, the article contained more detail than was necessary, and a section in Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more appropriate." Esolo5002 (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Esolo5002. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I considered closing it as merge, but many !voters felt that the article's content was inappropriate and should be deleted, and merging would require the article's history to be preserved. It would also have to be a very selective merge, and since there already sections on the main article, it's moot now anyway. Essentially, I felt there wasn't a large benefit to merging it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Where is Kate? closure summary
Can you please edit your AfD closure summary for Where is Kate? to reflect your recent comments? — The Anome (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think everything's sorted now. — The Anome (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- My sincere thanks also. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I think everything's sorted now. — The Anome (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You might want to take this user's talk page access away. See [1]. Thanks! WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Help with improving my article
Hello Ingenuity,
I noticed that you're quite experienced with article creation on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it, if you could help me look over a biography I recently created on a filmmaker Dare Olaitan. I would just like to be sure it has an encyclopedic tone and that the references are reliable.
Thank you for your time. Aivrie (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
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) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
How do you tell if content is AI generated?
Hi, saw your edit and edit summary on Abortion debate, and now I'm curious: how can you tell if content is AI generated? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: there's not just one thing that can determine if content is AI-generated, unfortunately, but there are a few things I look for. ChatGPT never cites sources (it's not really capable of doing that), and it often generates a opening paragraph, followed by a list, and then a closing paragraph (like in this edit). It uses some phrases often, like "some key points to consider", "plays a crucial role", etc. Another giveaway is that their edit on abortion debate was only two minutes after their last edit, so they'd have to type pretty fast! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Will keep an eye out for it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you, seeing as how you have unblocked the user who I have noted above, to ask if it would be OK to remove the sock tag from their userpage? I ask since they are unblocked now, and I don't see a reason to keep it around at this point. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done that now, thanks for pointing that out. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
About the EC ban
Hi, I acknowledge the mistake I made for the Hamas edit; however, I have not created invalid pages and want to ask for undoing the revoke, I am terribly sorry about the mistake. Thank you Justin L. 1230 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Justin L. 1230: you gained the permission through doing hundreds of rapid, tiny edits that are disruptive and do not demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies. I will not be reinstating your permission. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Alright Justin L. 1230 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- My bad its not that deep Justin L. 1230 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Will I be able to regain the EC rights if I make legitimate 500 more edits Justin L. 1230 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Alright Justin L. 1230 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2024
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Sorry
I only just noticed your warning me about my violation of 3RR here, and I want to sincerely apologize. You are completely right, I should have taken care not to violate the edit warring policy, and from here on out I will warn a user who is edit warring and stop reverting before I violate the rule per your reasoning. Sorry about this, thank you for calling me on it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Preservation
Fellow editor,
It has come to my attention that somebody is making a rather disrespectful attempt to remove the article on the reputable fellow Max Baker-Hytch. I humbly request your presence in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Baker-Hytch. to provide reasons and justification for keeping the article. We must thwart the nefarious plot to expunge this important article.--Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pesclinomenosomlos: there is no "nefarious plot" to remove the article. Stop posting this on peoples' talk pages or you will be blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)