User talk:Asilvering/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Parson's Tale and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Parson's Tale for comments about the article, and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Please undo deletion of "Hairshirt Environmentalism" Wikipedia Page.

Hello Asilvering,

Please read,

what I have just written for You, in This Talk Page:

If possible, please undo deletion of:

Hairshirt environmentalism

Many Thanks.

Thursday 3 October 2024.

Michael Jenkins.

Ukmjenkins (talk)

Sorry Ukmjenkins, that article was deleted because it didn't meet our inclusion guidelines, which are explained at WP:N. You may find this link helpful instead (it was one of the footnotes on the article that was deleted). -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, thank You so much for Your Reply.

(1) I read and understand Your Wikipedia Principle of Notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

(2) In The UK, "Hairshirtism", is A Real Spoken and Written Neologism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

(I) With A Real Word Sense, that is Not Vague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness

(II) That is intentionally, critical and dismissive, of Valid Empirical Environmentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

(3) Please may I ask You, did You, in Wikipedia, decide:

(I) The Real Spoken and Written Neologism "Hairshirtism" is not Notable enough ?

(II) Or, The Content of The Article "Hairshirt Environmentalism" is not Notable enough ?

(4) I have written This 3 Page PDF Article on The Term "Hairshirtism":

https://ukmjenkins.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/hairshirtism.pdf

Please can You read My Article,

and please can You, in Wikipedia, please accept,

My Article on The Term "Hairshirtism", as Evidence,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

that A New Wikipedia Article on "Hairshirtism" may qualify as Notable, please ?

(5) Please can You, in Wikipedia, please understand, that I and Many People,

do need A Reliable Wikipedia Reference Article on "Hairshirtism", please,

that formally clarifies The Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

in order to be able to defend Environmentalism,

from Its Critics, who dismiss Environmentalism Concerns,

with Their Spoken and Written Word "Hairshirtism",

as if We, The UK Population, and The World Population,

have to accept Their Dismissal,

and have to intuitively understand,

The Correct Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

with No Vagueness, and with No Online Reference.

(6) Ukmjenkins (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your third item: yes, the discussion found that the topic, "hairshirt environmentalism", does not fulfil our notability guidelines. The link I already gave you was the source for the article, so you can use it as your reference instead. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque

Hi Asilvering. Would you add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque so I can understand your reasoning? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond here, since I can be more expansive here than in a closure, but if you still want me to edit the close afterwards, let me know and I'll do that. (Actually, if I recall correctly, I did make an attempt to write a closing statement, but the attempts came off too brusque, sounding too much like "Cunard's argument sucks", which wasn't at all my intent, so went without.)

Basically, what we have here is three deletes (incl nom) and then a substantial keep !vote and some substantial discussion but no further votes after that last keep. So before reading it, I was expecting that this would probably be a relist (to get some more input on the keep), but that it could plausibly be a delete, depending on the arguments. Looking at the arguments, I find that all three deletes say that the coverage is fleeting, and two of them specifically mention PR items. Moving on to the keep argument, it appears to me to be mostly made up of fleeting coverage and PR items, so that doesn't rebut the previous arguments very well. At this point, if that was the end of it, I'd either go investigate those sources myself and vote, or I'd relist and specifically ask for participants to determine whether the sources listed counter the arguments of the delete side or not. In this case, scope_creep already did an analysis of the sources, and it confirms my own impressions from reading the sections that were quoted in the AfD. There's some more back-and-forth afterwards, centring on the same issue. So, what that says to me is that we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered, but rather a difference of opinion on whether the sources are PR, routine, in-depth, etc. On that difference of opinion, the delete votes carry, 3:1. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the shipping Levesque? Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a Levesque who is in shipping, though I don't know if he's the shipping Levesque. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter J? Sure looks it.

If this guy isn't "notable", that says a good deal more abour Wiki and Wikians than him. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, notability as defined by wikipedia isn't really a statement about individual subjects. WP:42 has the short version. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. When there is robust discussion and notable disagreement in an AfD, I recommend always leaving a closing statement so that participants understand the reasoning. I found the lack of a closing rationale after all that discussion to be jarring. I consider "we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered" to be inaccurate. None of the five of the sources I linked—three of which were offline sources—were referenced by Oaktree b and Bearian in their statements. When I did a Google News search like what Oaktree b said he did, I was leaning towards supporting deletion too because I thought there were only PR items about him. Only once I did more detailed searches for sources did I find enough non-PR sources to support notability. My comment here explained the methodology of the Virginia Business source (the strongest source) and demonstrated it is an independent source. Only scope_creep and I had commented specifically on the sources I linked and we disagreed. The best option would have been a relist with a ping to the previous participants to ask them to review the new sources and to give more editors the opportunity to chime in. It seems that Qwirkle (talk · contribs) likely would have supported retention too based on their comments here. However, while a relist would have been the optimal approach, a "delete" close is defensible under the numbers and likely would be upheld at deletion review if I were to take it there. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover

Hi Asilvering. I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Travel and tourism, so I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover as "soft delete". Would you reconsider your close? Bearian was the only editor who responded to the AfD. He wrote "keep" in his edit summary and "a perfect example of where two people see the same thing and come to different conclusions, based fundamentally on their respective viewpoints". I think Bearian's bolding of "delete" instead of "keep" was a mistake under this context.

The article was undeleted and draftified to Draft:Layover based on an undeletion request from PK-WIKI (talk · contribs). The draftifier wrote "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Based on this response, I am not moving the draft back myself even though it was a "soft delete" close. I would prefer that draft is restored directly to mainspace since multiple editors (myself, Bearian, and PK-WIKI) think that layover is a notable topic and should be retained. Layover was also removed from a large number of articles so those links will need to be restored. It will be easier to restore those links now rather than later when intervening edits have been made. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you may well be correct that Bearian's comment was an error. But I'm not sure why you want a close overturned for a soft delete? It's already gone through undeletion and is waiting for improvement in draftspace. The process is working exactly as it should. -- asilvering (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be restored to mainspace without having to first wait for improvement in draftspace followed by further review. This is because it was soft deleted when an editor opposed deletion (while mistakenly bolding the wrong word). This is because the longer it takes to restore the article, the harder it will be to undo the removal of layover from a large number of articles once intervening edits have been made. I would have moved the article back to mainspace myself were it not for the undeletion message saying "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Cunard (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether the article is in mainspace or not has no bearing on whether those links can be re-added. You're welcome to add them back as you like, even as redlinks - actually, it looks like many of them will be blue links anyway, since they weren't linking directly to Layover, but instead to Stopover. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the AfD was closed as "soft delete", I've restored the draft to mainspace at Layover and asked for the 169 links to be restored. Cunard (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't ping me

I will not participate in the GA review (or any GA process) and will carry out actions which I am not comfortable with just to meet the requiremnts of the process. I want nothing to do with the article - don't keep pinging me to make me change my mind.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Was just hoping to clear up some confusion. Actually, I think you may have me confused with someone else, as I think I've only pinged you once? Would you like me to request that others avoid pinging you as well? -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Darrell Castle (2nd nomination)

I noticed that you closed the second nomination for deletion of Darrell Castle as merge. Only two voters solely expressed support for it while the vast majority wanted to keep the article and one deciding to redirect. Can this be reopened? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Er, I don't see a vast majority wanting to keep the article here. I barely see a simple majority arguing for keep, at the most expansive possible reading (and to get to that count, I have to take every "keep/merge" as a keep vote, and accept the IP vote as a keep also, even though it has nothing to do with any kind of inclusion policy). There's only one really substantial keep !vote (yours), which is countered by the later !votes and the previous AfD. Meanwhile, every one of the four votes that came in after the relist have support for the article being merge+redirected or simply redirected to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. That later end of the discussion looks pretty clear to me, and @Scope creep has already performed the merge, so I'm hesitant to revert all that and relist it. If you want, you could try WP:DRV? I think that's probably where you should have gone in the first place in June instead of removing the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fritschi circle

Hello, Asilvering. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fritschi circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oversight

Thanks for the message. I had that taken care of a few years ago. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck out there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

May he support your new mop related endeavors!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Asilvering for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How do i fix this

Talk:German Instrument of Surrender i sent the same thing twice due to confusion from slow internet,the "Date of signing"topic UnsungHistory (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to leave the duplicate, but you can also just edit the page and remove one of them, or revert one of your edits. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A WikiLove-cookie for you!

BrandenburgBlue has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

BrandenburgBlue_{Talk with me!} 13:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from King Rith on Shipunov 2A42 (06:58, 11 October 2024)

The King --King Rith (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sayful Ialam (11:18, 13 October 2024)

'XFD Participation tool' how can i use. --Sayful Ialam (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

First you have to install the script, which you can do here: User:Awesome Aasim/xfdvote. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how to install. Sayful Ialam (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You simply need to press the blue "install" button on the linked page. You can also do it the "hard" way: go to User:Sayful_Ialam/common.js, create the page, and add:

importScript("User:Awesome Aasim/xfdvote.js");

to it, then hit "publish". asilvering (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you helping me. I always ask for your advice. Sayful Ialam (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygon (blockchain)

Can you please explain the Polygon (blockchain) deletion? G4 does fit, but it was my understanding that it was permissible to remove the tag despite a criterion being satisfied and that a different process should then be used.

I was in the process of compiling sources in an attempt to demonstrate notability. My intention with removing the tag was to give myself more time.

If you're willing to provide a copy of the article (i.e. the pre-AfD version since that was the substantial one), that would be appreciated as well - it would help whether this is undeleted or needs to be recreated. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polygon (blockchain). If you are able to find sources that show a pass of WP:NCORP that were not addressed in that discussion, I can restore the original version to draftspace for you, so you can improve it. You're not going to want the version that was just deleted via G4, since the one that was deleted following the deletion discussion was much longer. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please restore the original to draftspace for me, thanks! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you found new sources that show notability? -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten very far, I'd rather see what the article covered and didn't cover before searching more. Isn't userfication generally uncontroversial? I can use a different venue if you prefer though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, mostly I didn't want you to waste your time if there isn't any coverage that came out in month since the deletion. If you'd rather go content-first, fair enough; I'll send it to User:XDanielx/Polygon momentarily. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sayful Islam (09:55, 14 October 2024)

Draft:Mizanur Rahman Azhari Articles are protected from multiple deletions. Article creation is protected from spamming without unique user references. Please check the registration how to main.Registration is available in other languages including Bengali. --Sayful Islam (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further because the subject does not meet our notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Rachsharma27 (12:23, 15 October 2024)

hello, i have recently added a page but it shows draft has it gone for approval?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Graphisads

this is the link for your reference --Rachsharma27 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it looks like you already received a review in the time it took me to answer this question. -- asilvering (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ivy Wolk

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ivy Wolk. 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.

Hi asilvering, I've started a draft that includes sources published since the AfD. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Another question

If asking this kind of question here is annoying or otherwise the wrong venue, please say so and I'll switch to a more appropriate venue. In a few AfD discussions I've come to the conclusion that either we should have an article on X, or X should be a redirect to Y but that I don't know if X is notable, perhaps because I've found a lot of sources, but I can't tell if they're wp:aboutself or I don't understand the relevant notability guideline. What is the appropriate !vote to bold in this case? Redirect Seems wrong because I don't have any reason to oppose Keep. McYeee (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're unsure, you can always make a "comment" instead of arguing for keep/redirect specifically, or you can say something like "Keep, but would not oppose redirect to articlename". There's no need to make a firm vote if you don't feel like you ought to make one for whatever reason. As a participant, I appreciate it when people offer their opinions, sources they've found, and so on - honestly, I often think these are more helpful than bolded !votes. And closers will find hesitant comments like "I found these sources, but I'm not sure about them" or "I'm not sure, and here are my reasons" useful too. It says "there's room for more discussion here" and "not everyone (presently) agrees with deletion", at the very least. -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll lead with comment next time. McYeee (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and the question was not annoying at all. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for single-handedly cleaning up the mess created by WhiteReaperPM's sock. Your efforts are highly appreciated. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry you've been having to deal with it. I'm going to try to retreat back into my "blissfully unaware of Maratha history" cave for now. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for emailing me that source for the Barrett Watten article, and your help in maintaining the civility in the discussion surrounding it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your tireless work there too. It may not have been appreciated (alas), but it made the wiki a better place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Pottel (Draft)

Hi,

When i started writing the draft of Pottel - Film, as its a telugu language film. I wanted to keep the title as Pottel(film), As pottel is an colloquial word for Ram, ( Male goat). Once the review happened. The title has been just Pottel and I am unable to edit it to "Pottel (film). to avoid confusion.

Can you please guide me in that.

Meanwhile i have added resources, album section, and citations. If time permits, have a glance and review.

Thank you - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Herodyswaroop, Draft:Pottel is the right location for this film title, since we don't have any article at Pottel. We only add the bracketed disambiguators if we have multiple articles that would otherwise have the same title. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh got it, I thought all the films should be mentioned in brackets. Meanwhile, if time permits. Can you review the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already declined it once, so I'll be leaving further reviews for other editors, sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Okie Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Draft

Hi @Asilvering You some time ago added a comment in my draft of Draft:Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict (1326 to 1518) saying that I was involved in Sockpuppetry. Now, when that spi has been closed and I am not founded guilty. Hence, I think you should visit my draft again and remove that comment.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012, I'm not going to remove that comment, since it is true: what I said was submitter is currently in an spi filing, not that you are a sockpuppet. But I can make a second comment noting that the SPI is completed and you were not blocked as a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Please also do that to Draft:Ahmad Shah II's invasion of Mewar, You have also added a comment in it.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Many Thanks Rawn3012 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

[1]

Yes, I didn't bother reporting them, but 27.34.72.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is obviously also Anup Rajbanshi|. 2400:1A00:BD20:B07B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who wrote the majority of the article 15 minutes after it was created, was actually blocked. Note that they are both using the Visual Editor on mobile. If it makes you feel better you could always block the IP and then delete the article. C F A 💬 02:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better you could always block the IP and then delete the article. lol. Fair enough, that does look really ducky. I should have checked the IPv6 editor against the SPI before declining. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Clockworst (12:00, 20 October 2024)

How do i edit --Clockworst (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You just did! It really is as simple as clicking "edit". See WP:NEWBIE for a getting-started guide. Welcome to wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Pager attack close

For the Lebanon vs Hezbollah debate, I think you’ve mis-assessed which side NPOV falls on - NPOV means reflecting reliable sources, even if we as editors are concerned that reliable sources are collectively reflecting one sides POV.

In this case, reliable sources overwhelmingly classify this as an attack against Hezbollah. Given this, can you please re-evaluate your close? BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Too late. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that changes anything - errors with those close should still be resolved, if only to give the closer of that RM proper context. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually don’t have an opinion on the RM, I just wanted to point the new RM that should be procedurally closed. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should the new one be procedurally closed? It's the outcome I recommended in my close. It's not my intent to send everyone back for a fresh discussion - just a quick affirmation of the outcome, or a decision that the most important thing is to have "Hezbollah" in the title, and thus to go with "device explosions". -- asilvering (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that a new RM should be opened few hours after the old RM was closed. It’s just like renominating an article for deletion few hours after it closed as no consensus. Ofcourse, I could be blatantly wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, in this case it isn't at all like that, as closing an AfD as no consensus usually means a clear outcome is not possible at this time. My close of the previous RM clearly indicated that an outcome is now very possible, and gave suggestions for how to bring it about. -- asilvering (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well then. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded it for clarity. What I intended was more "I'm concerned that this was brought up by a minority of participants and not precisely rebutted by the other side" than "I am concerned that they are correct", which is how my original close worded it. I don't actually have a position on whether it's an npov issue in either direction in this case. I can also affirm that even if I thought there was an npov issue that favoured "Lebanon" over "Hezbollah", I would have closed that section in the same way - namely, that "Hezbollah" was preferred by more participants, but that "Lebanon" is not far behind and has strong reasons to remain "in the running", so to speak, for the final close, owing to the potential to mislead that many participants were concerned about. -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A brief note...

Just a brief note to say that it seems that we see certain issues differently and perhaps it would be better if we were to stay out of each other's way in future. I have no doubt that you do a great deal of excellent work here, and I personally try to be as useful as I can in areas where I can be of use (mostly COI edit requests).

Ultimately I'm sure that we are both trying to bring about the same kind of results and that further disagreements are probably counterproductive. Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Er, happily, but if you feel this way about someone in the future, I suggest disengaging, rather than replying to them and then going to their talk page about it when they don't respond. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

questions about some AfD comments

Recently, I have come across a couple of your comments at AfD discussions that I didn't understand and I'm hoping you can explain them to me. I defer to your WP knowledge as an administrator, but I occasionally ask questions so that I understand WP better. You just commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri about not wanting to close the discussion as a soft delete. I have no problems with asking for more input, but my experience is that usually a discussion with a nomination and two supporting delete votes (and no votes to keep) isn't closed as a soft delete. Also, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John-Paul Tran you "confirmed" an article was significant coverage when it was local coverage consisting mainly of an interview with the subject and his father. What did you see that I didn't? Not trying to offend, just want to understand. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No offense taken! Regarding the first, I take the nominator and one other delete !vote as a soft delete. When there are two delete !votes, whether I am happy closing that as delete or not depends on the arguments of the votes. In this case we have a "strong delete" that says only "not notable"; that's an almost information-free !vote, so we're basically back down to a single delete vote and the nominator. The nominator isn't sure either; we've really only got one totally firm !vote (yours). So I wouldn't normally like to soft delete there if it's likely that an editor would try to recreate it. But looking at it again, there's also this not-really-a-vote stuff by the article creator, which is close enough to an objection that I ought to count it as one, so I've reworded the relist comment to avoid mentioning soft deletion entirely.

Regarding the second, whether coverage is significant or not doesn't have anything to do with whether it's local. Here's WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, the subject actually is the main topic, and is even in the headline: that's significant coverage! Also, coverage is significant even when it isn't independent. This is, however, also independent - the article has a byline and isn't an interview. (Having a lot of quotes doesn't make it "an interview". It's probably not great journalism, but that, too, is another question.) When something is discarded as irrelevant for notability purposes because it's an interview, that means something that looks a lot more like a basic Q&A. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. On the first one, I was thinking that might have been your reasoning. One the second, it's always been my impression that when all the info is from the subject (or his father) and not independent research by the interviewer, it's hard for me to see how it's independent coverage. Not sure how that differs from your "basic Q&A". Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this reply earlier. To be clear, if you think there are WP:V concerns about a particular "fact" because it's from the subject's mouth alone, you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion when it comes to writing an article. It's also fine to say in an AfD discussion that you don't think a particular article is very solid coverage for notability purposes for that reason - eg, if you were making a source table, you might call that one "partially independent" and note that it's a news article but is over-reliant on quotes from the subject. In a basic Q&A, all the information (except maybe a paragraph at the top, which many Q&A-type interviews include) is directly coming from the subject and is obviously completely not independent. -- asilvering (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Except for the one youth championship, which was never factually in dispute, I can't recall any facts in the interview that had an independent source (though it's been a while and I could be mistaken). It didn't impact the decision so I think we can amicably say we disagree. I do appreciate your insight, but I think it was your certainty that surprised me. Thank you for explaining your thought processes in these cases. Papaursa (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Vofa (13:52, 22 October 2024)

How to handle the erasure of my contributions by motivated users? Is it allowed to think that a user may be motivated to erase information? I abandoned several projects because of this. I am here to make an Encyclopedia. --Vofa (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vofa, when you say users are "motivated", I assume what you mean is that they have some motivations beyond "create a better encyclopedia". It's really important to avoid making this kind of assumption - remember to assume good faith! I notice from your talk page that many different editors have come to talk about some edits that you've made, and they're names I recognize from various different areas of the project, so I don't think you're the target of some kind of censorship campaign (or whatever else). If you don't understand why someone is removing your edits, generally the best thing to do is ask them directly, but if you don't want to do that because you're worried about getting into a fight about it or for whatever other reason, feel free to link me to the dispute in question and I can tell you where I think they're coming from. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The dispute in question is unclear. Im trying to be good faith, but what it seems to me is that it’s a blatant preventing of making an encyclopaedia. Please look at the Kazakhs page and look at the recent revert by the user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Turkiishh&redlink=1. I’ve tried to talk to them but they erased they blanked their talk page for some reason. I’d really want to understand what’s the issue with my contributions. Hope you’re having a great day. Vofa (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That user looks like they should have their actions investigated, actually, so I'm glad you brought that up. "Vandalism" means that someone is intending to cause harm to the encyclopedia, which really does not appear to be the case with your edits, so I undid their removal of your edits and suggested they go to the talk page if they have to. If there is an issue with your contributions, hopefully someone can tell you there, but it looks more likely that this is an issue with the other editor. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vofa (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Growth News, October 2024

Current work

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.

One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation

Constructive activation experimentation

After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.

Community Configuration

This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:

• The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
• Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)

Future work

As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.

Community events

• Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
• Habib Mhenni gave a presentation of how mentorship works at WikiIndaba 2024. The recording is available.

Stay informed

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

OKA cleanup listing - Coordinates needed

Hey! I'll start working on the "Coordinates needed" section of your OKA cleanup list and I wanted to clarify some things.

Is there a specific template to use in order to satisfy the demand? Or should I see case by case?

Some articles have the location template (e.g. Abbey of Saint-Symphorien, Metz) where I can input coordinates. Some others are very simple and do not present templates (e.g. Aleksandrów Kujawski internment camp); in these cases I was thinking about adding {{Coord}} to the top of the article.

Thanks in advance!

Sintropepe (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I updated Historic Center of Caxias do Sul with {{coord}} at its top. Is it right? Another question: how do we update the list?

Sintropepe (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry, I have never touched the co-ordinates on any wikipedia article as far as I'm aware, so you're better off asking at WP:TEA. I think these are usually added to infoboxes, so I'm not sure why something would end up in the "co-ordinates needed" section of the maintenance list when it doesn't have an infobox. There are people out there who know a lot about this, but they're not me!

As for how to update the list, don't worry about it. The bot runs once a week, on Tuesdays, and the list will refresh automatically then. -- asilvering (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered making a voter guide for ADE?

Category:Wikipedia administrator elections 2024 voter guides. I'd feature the category on the ADE2024 page, but ADE appears to have consensus not to do so. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't written anything beyond the bits I did up on AfDs and don't plan to - that's been enough already! It's my hope that others can speak for other oft-discussed-at-RFA-topics they're interested in. -- asilvering (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay! It's just that I thought the AfD stats would do better if centralized lol Aaron Liu (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, fair enough. That also gives me a chance to explain centrally why people shouldn't look at just the numbers. I'll get on that in a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it's up at User:Asilvering/2024 EFA notes on AFDs but only partially finished so far. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Louise Glover Article - Concerns over Harm and Balancing.

Hello, I would like a second opinion on the content of the article 'Louise Glover'. As you will know, it was recently kept after being nominated for deletion. In the discussion, it was established that the subject is still notable.

However, I would like a second opinion on is whether the subject could be considered a low-profile individual.

I argue that the subject is low-profile seeing as the they no longer do modelling work and receive a lot less media attention than in the past. If the subject is indeed a low-profile individual, then are following BLP guidelines justification for removing their criminal convictions?

"Exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.", "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care"

I ask this as the convictions have nothing to do with the subject's original reason for notability and they could also harm their reputation.

In summary, Is the subject a low-profile individual, and if so, is there a justified reason to remove material that could harm their reputation per the BLP guidelines such as their criminal convictions? Svenska356 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svenska356 (talk page watcher) It seems that the section was referenced by one article that was reposted to other sites. I found the original article, linked it as an inline citation, and made it clear that it was being reused a few times. I also removed a citation that was incomplete and indicated that another citation contained a dead link.

Since it's reliably sourced as having actually happened (especially important for living people!), it could be a violation of NPOV to remove the information entirely. However, making sure it continues to not be overemphasized should be a priority. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the key issue is making sure that the article is balanced, so as to meet NPOV guidelines. The quote about the subject having no remorse could be an overemphasis, and could be quite harmful to the subject's reputation. I agree that the information should be kept if the they are still high profile. But, it might still be best to condense the crinimal convictions and put it all in the same place, so that the article is balanced. Svenska356 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to this, @I dream of horses! @Svenska356, I also posted this one to WP:BLPN earlier, so the folks who like to work on this kind of thing can have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Svenska356 Just to avoid any confusion, it was PamD who reverted my edits. Any further discussion should take place on Talk:Louise Glover to avoid further fragmentation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(ETA: Or, perhaps, on that BLPN post asilvering mentioned above...) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a suspicion I may be targeted.

Hello! I hope you’re having a great day. I have noticed that my contributions to the Bashkir page and maybe some more which I’m not active on have been reverted. The user in question is @Beshogur I have been threatened with a block from editing. My contributions have been labelled as “add a random spelling + asked for citations + erased sources” all of which are gross oversimplifications. I am not feeling safe. Please, help me and review the pages yourself. Another thing is that when @Beshogur said he “reverted the page to pre edit war” he did not do that, but instead reverted to the most recent contribution by the user @Turkiishh less than an hour after @Turkiishh made their edit. (No talk page was opened on the @Beshogur’s page by @Turkiishh user. Yesterday you said that that user needed investigation. Please help! The articles are Keraites and Bashkirs. There is currently an administration discussion regarding me. Vofa (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Asilvering (talk · contribs) I opened ANI about his edit history. Also laughed at connecting me to Turkiishh (talk · contribs). Beshogur (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vofa, again, I encourage you to remember to assume good faith. I don't see any evidence (yet?) that you're being targetted. Your edits are being reverted, and the reversion rationales are often extremely unhelpful, and at any rate all participants ought to be going to the talk pages and not engaging in edit wars. But that doesn't mean you're being targetted - it means there is a failure of communication. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thank you! Vofa (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-open ANI discussion on POV pushing

I am requesting that this ANI discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SheriffIsInTown%E2%80%99s_POV-Pushing,_User_Conduct

Be re-opened as I believe the user is continuing his POV pushing, I would also like to request more admin opinions on the matter after the re-opening of the discussion. Titan2456 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Titan2456, I didn't close that one - the person to ask is Drmies. But you can also open a new discussion and simply link back to the old one, which may be a better choice. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Vofa (06:11, 24 October 2024)

Hello! I want to link the discussion about the versions of the Keraites page first. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Keraites what to do if the wrong revision of the page was restored? I have explained my thoughts on the situation and overall want your take on the page revisions. Please read the Talk page discussion I’ve linked! Good day. --Vofa (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want an admin's take on the page revisions, what you have to do is submit an edit request on the talk page of the article. Make it as clear and brief as possible. I don't recommend phrasing it as "the admin protected the wrong version of the page". Just say what edit you think is needed, give a brief rationale, and give at least one reliable source. -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, asilvering, the discussion phase has closed, so I thought I'd reply here instead, just to thank you for your comments. Your advice is eminently sensible. If successful, I wouldn't see myself using the tools on Irish-related articles, except for, say, cases of obvious vandalism. That's a practice that seems to have been/still is mostly followed by previous and current Irish admins, with one or two exceptions. In recent times I've (mostly) tended to stay away from topics where things can get very heated, very quickly - e.g., American politics, the ARBGG issues, and - oddly! - Marvel superhero TV shows (/insert shrug emoji and a smiley!) Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, and good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from W0m4l1v2 (11:50, 25 October 2024)

I was asked to cite a source for my contribution to "No Worries". The source is an episode of The Fugitive that aired in December 1965. Here's a link to the transcript: https://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?p=184271#p184271 I'm not sure I understand how to cite it properly. --W0m4l1v2 (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure why the other editor has said "with different connotations" in their reversion of your edit. I've read the transcript and it sure seems like the same context to me. I'd go to the article's talk page and ask for clarification on that one.

As for your initial edit, I haven't checked the original source that was already on the sentence you added to (Hoffmann & Siebers 2009), so I don't know if your edit was incorrect - do they talk about this show specifically in their book? If they don't, the edit you made ([2]) is no good - see how it makes it look like Hoffman & Siebers were talking about The Fugitive? If you're going to add new information, make sure you're not adding it immediately before a footnote to a source that doesn't say that. It's an easy mistake to make, but a really hard mistake to fix, since it doesn't look "wrong" to anyone reading the article later. Thanks for editing wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

An interesting stat

With the caveat that 73% of statistics are made up ;) ...

I was crunching some numbers on administrator action statistics. Of all the admins who became admins in the last 2.5 years, you are the admin with the most average actions per day at more than 26 per day. Based on standard deviations on this population, this likely places you in the top 3% of the most active admins we have on the project. Please don't burnout :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That is interesting, and I second your comment about burnout. Asilvering, you do a lot at GA and your work there is very appreciated! I'd suspect I'm near the bottom of the list for admin activity. I was elevated mostly on the basis of good content work, and though I pitch in from time to time, I don't get through tons of admin actions on a regular basis. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I take this as further evidence that stats aren't everything and that deletion work shoots those numbers up real fast! I'm about to head to my cave for the rest of the semester, so I presume I'll be doing less. Busy doing all the writing and marking I neglected in October, as is my terrible and unshakable habit. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)