Leesaaisath (talk | contribs) →Deletion of Page: Reply Tag: Reply |
Vanilla Wizard (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
:I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
:I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
::I also think it may have been beneficial to keep [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination)]] open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into [[WP:ATA|arguments to avoid]] territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/Vanilla Wizard|💙]] 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:46, 25 January 2024
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11
as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Bathrobecabalicon.png/100px-Bathrobecabalicon.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Jimbo_Peeking.gif)
| |||||||||||||
|
Contentious Topics awareness templates |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOQUORUM,
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article
. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) - The Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by requesting undeletion. Jay 💬 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and UtherSRG I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that WP:NOQUORUM considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete. Jay 💬 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete. Jay 💬 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and UtherSRG I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that WP:NOQUORUM considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at WT:DELPRO#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Improving "Resisting AI"
Hi Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's Fifty Years of Freedom. WP:BOOKS also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, The Wordsmith,
I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work.
If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Wikipedia editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to Filmfare Awards then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him.
- Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3
- I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith Any comments on this? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Any sort of external relationship could cause a conflict of interest even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.
- Anything about the current Tag on Rizwan Sajan ? @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith... iVickyChoudhary (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's ok <3. thanks for you kind words. :) iVickyChoudhary (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith... iVickyChoudhary (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Any sort of external relationship could cause a conflict of interest even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith Any comments on this? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Clovermoss
Dennis Brown
- Julia W
- Marasmusine
- PBS
- Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
- The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.
- The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Your note on WP:EEML
I'm replying to you here because threaded discussions are not allowed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. I hope this is acceptable. I reviewed WP:EEML and while I agree that summarizing the evidence in a way that doesn't compromise privacy is possible, I wanted to note that this case is quite different:
1. There were no indefinite topic bans or blocks in this case. 2. The editors were accused of canvassing others and disruptive editing, not for being canvassed, which seems to be a far lesser offense.
Given those differences, I think citing this as a precedent is not entirely accurate. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Marokwitz (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Several editors were topic banned and site banned in that case, and both topic and site bans have been proposed during the current motions. Additionally, the LTA who allegedly coordinated the meatpuppetry was already banned. Regarding being canvassed, I'd encourage you to look at the Findings of Fact in that case closer. The individual users were noted
has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed
. Regardless, this was the first big landmark off-wiki coordination case that I can remember. Even if not all if it is identical, there are enough similarities that it can be looked to as a source of precedent in how related issues are handled. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)- Was there a user in that case who was sanctioned only for having "participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed"?
- I can see the similarities, but it seems that the accused people there were all neck-deep into disruptive editing, edit warring, actively canvassing others, sharing their passwords. And none of them were indefinitely banned or blocked. I think for completeness and fairness to the accused editors in this case, it would be good to mention those difference in your statement. Marokwitz (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, nobody was sanctioned only for participating after being canvassed. It was listed as sanctionable behavior, however and I never said it was the exact same situation. I'm see no need to add to my statement at this time; other editors and Arbs can read the case and determine for themselves how much of it applies. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Welsh Tidy Mouse
That actually does seem like it might be a viable topic, when it comes to "famous Internet animals". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- It might be, but not yet. The coverage I've seen so far all seems like WP:DOGBITESMAN. If it ends up going viral and being covered elsewhere on a more ongoing basis, there might be something there. Someone is bound to try creating it, so I'm tempted to create an R with possibilities if I can find a good target for it. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
A bathrobe for you!
![]() |
A bathrobe for you! |
I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? QueenofHearts 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you! The WordsmithTalk to me 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello :) I am referring to your deletion of the article (Wikipedia:Articles to be deleted/Timișoara Award for European Values). I am still quite new to Wikipedia and have definitely learned a lot for my first self-published article, even if some of the criticisms were linguistically very disrespectful, inappropriate and politically motivated. I would now like to make a new attempt at uploading, now that the award has been presented and the international media landscape is sufficient to prove the relevance of the award. I would also like to adjust the way I write to avoid WP:PEACOCKs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeneEfimero (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you would like to rewrite the article so that it can meet Wikipedia's standards, it is highly recommended that new editors use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Additionally, the guide at Help:Your first article has a lot of great information about the article writing process, as well as things to be cautious about when writing. Good luck with your article! The WordsmithTalk to me 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Signature
Your signature contains the CSS style properties font-family:Courier New;font-size:3
. As I understand the spec, the value for the font-size
property shouldn't be dimensionless. In my browser, I believe this is causing an issue I see with the visual diff feature, with your user name displaying at what seems to be a 3-pixel size in diffs. Could you consider modifying this? As the obsolete HTML font size of 3 is equivalent to the base font size, I think it can be omitted as your signature hasn't set any different font sizes previously. Alternatively, you could use the medium
value. I appreciate any consideration you may give. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- My signature is pretty old. If it is causing problems I'm happy to update it, but I don't use that feature so I haven't noticed it. What's the name of the "visual diff" feature/gadget/preference? And if you could screenshot what you're seeing, that would also be helpful. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- It seems the visual diff feature is now available to everyone (it used to be a beta feature). When viewing a diff, near the top of the page, there is a selector for "Visual" or "Wikitext". You can also link directly to a diff in a specific mode, so for example adding &diffmode=visual to the end of a diff URL will use visual mode. This link shows your previous post in visual diff mode.
- I've been trying to track down the reason why the smaller font size is only appearing in the visual diff and not the displayed text below the diff (or on the talk page), but haven't succeeded yet. Firefox will display the diff with a normal font size; Chrome, Edge, and Opera (all based on the Chromium codebase) show your username with a 3-pixel font size in the diff. Using the web developer tools, both Firefox and Chrome show that the
font-size:3
property has an invalid value, and thus the rendering engine is ignoring the value, but for some reason with Chrome the computed font size is different in the diff versus the text below. (I did test that by manually editing the page to remove the font-size property, the user name displayed correctly with a normal font size.) - I understand if you are reluctant to alter your signature, given that this problem doesn't affect how your signature appears on the actual page, and doesn't show up on Firefox. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do some experimenting and see how I want to modify my signature. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hey.
Re this revert, are you sure? Footnote a in WP:ELNEVER#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of The Internet of Garbage, which per its first page is copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Resolved per Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)#PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO. Sorry for the hassle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) According to The Internet of Garbage, that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's content delivery network. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of Page
Hi Dear Administrator,
Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything.
If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence Leesaaisath 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give significant coverage of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the Articles for Creation process. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.
- Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas.
- Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles.
- Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some.
- I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste.
- I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise.
- As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence Leesaaisath 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.
Relist vs. delete
Just my opinion, but I think relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also think it may have been beneficial to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination) open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into arguments to avoid territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)