User talk:Asilvering: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey asilvering, I saw that you declined my G11 here. While I felt like the article in its current state looked a lot like an advert, with awards and stating the organization's mission, I don't want to be too bitey so I just wanted to hear your side of the story for the future potentially? Oh and can you potentially make sure that there isn't a copyright violation in paragraph 4 of the draft? Earwig's seems to indicate that it was mostly copy-pasted from this website. But of course I could always be making a mistake, just wanted to get your opinion. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a copyright violation, please make sure you tag with WP:G12, even if you think it's also WP:G11 level - otherwise it might be undeleted. In this case I think I can fix it with revdel, thanks for pointing it out. Regarding whether it looks like an advert, I absolutely agree that it's made up of Marketing Language that isn't really acceptable on Wikipedia (looks like that copyvio is a press release, which explains that!). But this contributor is a declared paid contributor doing their best to follow the rules, so I don't think it's appropriate to delete their first attempt, even if it's not what we'd really want. In general I'd say that CSDs in draftspace are way too bitey, especially G11, and they also make it harder for AfC reviewers who aren't admins to help out when the submitting editor goes to the help desk in confusion. And drafts aren't very urgent - they'll all end up going out via WP:G13 in the end if the editor can't get it through AfC. Unless it's something so bad an editor also ought to catch an indef for spamming, imo it's better to let them keep trying. Though I will somewhat hypocritically admit that I have a close-to-zero tolerance level for the "SEO entrepreneur" and "Nigerian rapper" genres of draftspace G11s. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:LatitudeLearning. I was just wondering why you declined db-spam on this one. Does it not read as promotional? Hitro talk 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese, it's mostly a list of facts, so it's not so totally awful that someone couldn't use that as a basis to write something less promo. Will someone write something less promo? Probably not. In that case, @Hey man im josh will end up killing it six months from now. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G13 - Explicit, Liz, and myself check User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon several times a day and try to postpone deletion for any promising drafts, while deleting the rest. It'll get gone eventually if no one improves it. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese While there's some content in that draft that reads as promotional, personally I would have declined since there isn't any serious puffery-style language. I'd say it's a more ambiguous case than the one that I linked above and I wouldn't have tagged it myself. Again, probably my standards for deletion might be less tolerable than asilvering's. Personally maybe a deeper discussion on this could be had somewhere since people like my friend Hey man im josh might have different standards than me. But I was interested in making sure I didn't do too much, and thanks for asilvering for letting me know. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G12 would only apply if there is no non-infringing content worth saving, which in this case I saw that there was content that didn't show up on Earwig's. That's why I didn't tag for G12 and only tagged for G11. Personally I feel like your approach is probably unique from what I've seen, since I've seen that you've declined G11s from even other admins. But of course I don't really have an opinion, there's always a chance another person with less tolerance would just delete it. Maybe I've just fallen behind things since when I was an admin a few months ago, but I don't want to be too bitey either. I think it's more of an area that the community hasn't really defined that well, especially with the current discussion around U5 at ANI. Similar to how draftification discussions can be a mess sometime. But yeah, was just interested in your opinion, thanks for that. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's unique - when I've talked to other admins about CSD tagging, I've mostly had the experience of having them agree with me that things shouldn't be CSD'd. Unique among admins who routinely patrol CSDs... maybe. But I don't think it's a good idea to calibrate CSD expectations based on the handful of admins who routinely perform those deletions, given what's happening at ANI and now recall. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's why I've been trying to kind of recalibrate if that makes sense? For the future with taggings that I might make while I'm patrolling and if I ever become an admin again, though I'm not 100% sure I'd be wanted for the latter. But there's a lot of interpretation that goes into this, so can you maybe point to some other admins who talked to you about CSD tagging? I'm just making sure anyway. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to tag people in because I think I'm probably being annoying enough already asking all my questions, haha. But there's Josh above, for example, and I don't think @Elli will mind a ping for her opinions. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh Elli? Can't wait to meet up with her soon :) Fathoms Below (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise :) and I'm happy to give you my thoughts if you have questions on whether particular deletions would be appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, @Fathoms Below, @Hey man im josh, and @Elli: (talk page watcher) As a 'low hanging fruit' AfC reviewer, I often nominate for G11 deletion when it's pretty obvious that someone has come here to spam Wikipedia, and not to constructively edit it. However, if someone were to decline it, I'd take it as a sign that I've been looking at low quality articles for too long, and that I need to touch grass. /lighthearted /halfjoke I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good response to have, that will do much to protect your sanity from SEO farms. -- asilvering (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering. Uh, now I'm curious why you just blanked this page instead of deleting it per G12. It seemed like there was no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. (G12) Personally, I've never seen an admin blank a page and revdel when the history seemed to be entirely a copyvio from a promotional account. Another admin deleted the same sandbox when I tagged it earlier before the account recreated it. Are you entirely sure that this approach is in line with our policies right now? I'm just curious since it seemed like an unambiguous case and it seems entirely appropriate to delete per G12. Maybe a third opinion from another admin might help but it's just new to me. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The end result is the same - copyvio removed - so I don't know that there are any policies involved here that say one way or the other is better. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the end result is the same but it just seems... weird from my point of view. Maybe I'm just too used for things being one way rather than the other, but you have an unfamiliar approach to me. I guess we can agree that we're different anyway. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discourages people from tagging G12 because it signals to them that they have made a mistake performing tagging. Not everyone will come to your talk page to be assured that they did not make a mistake. It does not seem like a good practice at all to decline G12, blank, then revdel. It is better to delete and not send any confusing signals, and also not expose yourself to unnecessary questions. —Alalch E. 07:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Insert an infobox on my user page, i copied pasted infobox wikitext from Template:Infobox Wikipedia user,that failed,and then trying to get creative,maybe write about myself via infobox country,to express my intrest in politics,by copying pasting wikitext from Template:Infobox country,also refused to convert wiki-text,it usually converts wikitext,what is going on?? UnsungHistory (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait,never mind,i figured it out UnsungHistory (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but still,why is not the Wikitext working?? UnsungHistory (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've fixed it? -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm,the wikitext is not working,i used the alternate way (through the insert option in edit mode),but i wonder,what glitch is that where wikitext does not get converted?? UnsungHistory (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Maybe someone at WP:TEA will recognize the issue? -- asilvering (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you a real person --TheSkillet (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally touched your edit when I was placing my vote. I already self reverted and replaced my edit (this time taking extra care not to be the WP:BULLINCHINASHOP.) Just wanted to properly apologize.

RCSCott91 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed! No worries. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a userpage. If you compare the username to the page content, it looks to me that this is a CV, not an attempt at a draft. E.g., text like this by an account named Eonofua, that is E Onofua, and a userpage that begins Dr. Emmanuel Alexander Onofua and continues with text like Highly accomplished finance expert with 10+ years of experience in investment banking, financial consulting, and strategic leadership. Proven track record of driving business growth, managing complex projects, and providing expert advisory services to top-tier organizations. Highly accomplished finance expert with a PhD in Finance and over 15 years of experience in investment banking, financial consulting, and strategic leadership. Proven track record of driving business growth, managing complex projects, and providing expert advisory services to top-tier organizations. Looks like someone writing their personal profile to me. Thanks, MarcGarver (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sure looks like someone writing a crap autobio to me, too. People write all kinds of those (we see them at AfC all the time). They're drafts. Crap drafts! But drafts. And drafts aren't eligible for U5. -- asilvering (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that at the time. I would have deleted per U5 and G11 instead of draftifying. I agree we sometimes are over zealous with U5's and would like to learn more about your approach. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have just sighed and blocked that guy in particular for spamming, but in general my thinking is that if we're extending enough grace and good faith to someone that we're not going to make them eat an indef over their crap first edits, those edits don't deserve to be immediately summarily deleted either. Moving it to draft doesn't cost us much (only a bit more admin time than deleting), and it breaks the possibly desired "here is my linkedin profile" effect for the editor just as well as deletion. If they're a good faith editor making a genuine but foolish attempt at engaging with Wikipedia, they'll appreciate it. If they go to the AfC help desk or Teahouse in confusion, the non-admin reviewers/hosts will appreciate being able to see it (rather than having to say "I dunno, but it looks like your first try sucked so bad we set it on fire"). If they don't come back, it'll be resolved by G13 in six months, and if they refuse to get it and keep recreating their userpage, we can indef them and move on with our lives. -- asilvering (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Insightful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there -- If you don't mind me butting in -- I'm keen to share admin perspectives on what to do with U5–G11 tagged pages in the light of the discussion of Fastily's U5 deletions. For example, User:Billybilluk/Sample page, currently tagged G11, which I would probably generally delete G11 (but not U5), but I'm thinking (in the light of the above) you wouldn't? My feeling on some of these is that they overshare, and often give private information not only about themselves, but also relatives/friends/enemies. (This is particularly problematic with such pages from clear minors.) Anyway, interested in sharing views informally somewhere outside the Fastily petition. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I have more stringent criteria for honoring CSD's than some. Not sure I would honor that one. I do not detag them 'cause I know i'm out of alignment with other admins. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's very interesting to know, Deepfriedokra. What would drive me to delete it more than anything else is the names of all the subject's relatives. I tend to have three heaps when looking at G11: delete, grey area, decline, and am finding more and more that my personal grey area expands as I realise that there is a huge spectrum of response among admins. However, the great majority (though not all) of my grey-area G11s are later deleted by someone else, and some of my declines lead to conflict with patrollers (eg recently Draft:Posity Online), so I have been feeling rather out of step with community norms of late. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not so sure, @Deepfriedokra - of course, there's going to be a wide variety of opinions when you ask any 800 Wikipedians about anything, but I think there might be more sympathy for the "don't delete" end of things than you think. I think what happens is that all of the less-deletionist admins stop taking the tags off because they get tired of being yelled at by patrollers. Which means that nearly everything that gets tagged will be deleted, since it will just sit until it finds an admin who will take it. We probably shouldn't be calibrating ourselves on "it got deleted eventually" if that's going to end in that admin getting hung out to dry over it.

  As for this example... ugh. I admit that I have found exceptions to my ability to extend grace and good faith, and two of those exceptions are "SEO professionals" and "up-and-coming Nigerian rappers". As a promotional userspace draft on an "up-and-coming Nigerian tech entrepreneur"... I twitch and let someone else handle it. Yes, I know this means it will be deleted. I feel slightly better for not having pulled the trigger. -- asilvering (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "I think what happens is that all of the less-deletionist admins stop taking the tags off because they get tired of being yelled at by patrollers. Which means that nearly everything that gets tagged will be deleted, since it will just sit until it finds an admin who will take it." Indeed. And over time, those of us who started out being inclusionist,-user/draft-space-is-rarely-a-problem–type admins either turn away from deletion, or turn into deletion machines. I am more likely to intervene for things where I'm prepared to strip out overt promotion, but it's not clear whether that's ok in userspace. I'd certainly be offended if someone I didn't know came along and edited my sandbox drafts substantively. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't think about all the other people named. Of course if there are minors involved, it needs oversight. Most of my Gray area CSDs get deleted. I learned very quickly after my return to just leave be. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deepfriedokra Thanks. When to call for oversight is another thorny one; I have had most of my calls for oversight declined, too. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  under 14 yo seems to be the threshold. YMMV. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deepfriedokra, @Espresso Addict: I've been told the threshold is 15/16 years and younger. I've also had most of my rejected requests for oversight rev-deleted instead. I strongly suspect there's a gray area. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I dream of horses I'm fairly sure I've been told that deleted articles even on quite young children (12–15) need not be oversighted unless there is clear identifying material such as telephone number, or some other reason for caution. But perhaps the oversighters all work independently as well. PS: Sorry to hijack your talk on this issue, Asilvering! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Espresso Addict Perhaps I owe Asilvering an apology as well, since I was thinking about editors self-outing themselves (including but not limited to an autobiography).

  About perhaps the oversighters all work independently as well: I recently once sent something into User:Oversight, which apparently prompted a discussion aamong the oversighers as to whether or not it should be oversighted. It was oversighted during the discussion and remained oversighted. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The trouble with oversight, by its very nature, is that we mortals can't see what is oversighted and what isn't. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, I think everything I've referred to OS for "minor outing themselves" reasons has been actioned. But then, my "this needs oversight" alarms didn't go off for that User:Billybilluk/Sample page. -- asilvering (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [Missed this...] For clarity, I don't think there's anything that needs oversight in User:Billybilluk/Sample page (which seems to have bounced back) but unsourced personal info of that sort I remove from mainspace all the time, and even in userspace drafts that look like autobios, the subject is unlikely to have got consent from relatives to mention them. You do have to read the whole thing as sometimes similar profiles mention conquering drug abuse or the like, or even make allegations of sexual abuse towards identifiable people. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I would absolutely remove that stuff from mainspace articles. I end up having to do that kind of thing pretty often when accepting AfC drafts. -- asilvering (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you. Crafterstar (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck out there. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So,I just tested out my new signature on my talk page (because I thought it is the most logical place on Wikipedia to do so)it works just fine,so,since it is working i want to archive it UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to archive the signature test UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 20:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to archive it? You could simply remove it from the page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well,Remove or Archive,I do not know how to Archive,and I am always eager to learn more Edit tricks!UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 00:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCHIVE has info on how to archive talk pages in general. It can be confusing, but basically all you have to do is copy the code in the table "Sequentially numbered archives" under "ClueBot III" and paste it into the top of your user talk page. That will set up an automatic talk page archive. Once the bot runs the first time and generates you an archive page, you can just cut-and-paste the section you want to archive over onto it if you want to archive something early. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i may seem too pestering,but what does table "Sequentially numbered archives" under "ClueBot III" mean UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 02:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to direct you to the right part of the page. Do a ctrl+f (or command+f or whatever) search for "Sequentially numbered archives" and you'll find it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange....it shows 0/0 results.... UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asilvering,

I see you are active on the project so I thought I'd ask you a question. I was looking at draft articles that were due for CSD G13 speedy deletion later tonight and saw that you commented upon this draft that you thought it should be accepted as an article. Do you think so? Enough that we should postpone this deletion? I rarely see comments like that on drafts that were abandoned so I thought I'd ask. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Liz, I'll try and fix it up. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find even one source for the Yugoslav Communist Pirate Party or Komunistička Piratska Partija Jugoslavije? Fram (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake ref's-- the hallmark of a hoax.😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, made a talk page thread about this already. But, basically: their website does exist, so if it's a hoax, it's not just a hoax on our end. But since they appear to have just started existing (if this isn't a rather elaborate hoax), you might skip the prod and try G11 tbh. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pauletta Brupbakher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pauletta Brupbakher has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7 § Pauletta Brupbakher until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask a question regarding benefits here in Wikipedia while editing and doing changes in texts. --Kunchok Namgail Ladakh (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia, @Kunchok Namgail Ladakh! Ask away. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to see what you think. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely delete this one. My reasoning here is that ChatGPT doesn't have feelings and we wouldn't want it writing Wikipedia articles if it did anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passionate about deleting promotional autobiographies. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I do have a concern about the fact that it's been recreated multiple times as a speedy-able userpage. If this were a draft or article, I'd absolutely nominate it for a salting, but it's a userpage. Courtesy ping to Deepfriedokra I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think salting is a great idea most of the time, since that makes it harder for admins and patrollers to notice if something has been repeatedly recreated - that is, someone who wants to recreate an article can just slightly alter the title and go ahead, without it being obvious to anyone who didn't see the first one. Better to leave them as spam honeypots and block the spammers as they arise. -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed on salt. Only me and @Explicit:'ve deleted it. Many new users do not understand. There is always User:Deepfriedokra#rDFO's rule of thumb -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra and @Asilvering: I suppose you guys have a point. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please summarize the support and oppose arguments and counter-arguments you identified at Talk:Wild Wing#Requested move 26 September 2024 and explain how you weighed them to find consensus to move? Thank you. —В²C ☎ 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple: the oppose side says that the threshold of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is met; the support side says it is not. As for weighing them: the support side has eight editors in favour; the oppose side has three. The oppose arguments were not found to be persuasive by the support side. The support side has arguments that counter the oppose side; the oppose arguments depend on ignoring those arguments and on insisting that our guidelines are more firm about this than they really are. It wasn't a close call. -- asilvering (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a policy or guideline based keep argument that was made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World War II weapons of Turkey? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sure can't. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🤔 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how did we end up with a no consenus close? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's appropriate to close an AfD with two keep votes, a redirect, a merge, and only a single affirmation for deletion as anything other than "no consensus", you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check. But I don't think that will get anywhere (though you may find it personally affirming). Sometimes you've just got to sigh, roll your eyes, and try again in a few weeks. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that there was no policy or guideline based deletion argument? I would also note that redirect and delete are the same thing in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. What I said was pretty clear: If you think it's appropriate to close an AfD with two keep votes, a redirect, a merge, and only a single affirmation for deletion as anything other than "no consensus", you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check. Redirect and delete are absolutely not the same thing, though I will often count delete !votes as "would presumably be satisfied with a redirect" if they don't give any reason why it explicitly needs to be deleted or why a redirect is undesirable. In this case we also had two potential targets, with no later participants expressing a preference for either of them. -- asilvering (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not do what you often do here? You still have not explained how you get to no consensus if there are only policy based arguments on one side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that because In this case we also had two potential targets, with no later participants expressing a preference for either of them. I found no consensus for deletion because I saw no consensus for deletion. I don't get to overrule 2/3 of the participants simply because I think they're not doing AfD "correctly". What I can do is close the discussion as no consensus, so that it can be relisted again soon for another try, if anyone is so inclined. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you required to discount or disregard arguments which are not based in policy or guideline? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's appropriate to close an AfD with two keep votes, a redirect, a merge, and only a single affirmation for deletion as anything other than "no consensus", you're welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check. -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't add up, you don't seem to be counting Conyo14 at all and "No compelling reason that it should exist." is affirmation for deletion... And you can't say its two potential targets when it says "for instance" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my close was inappropriate you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV for a sanity check. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't know that unless you explain your close, which you haven't done if you haven't said how you accounted for Conyo14's contribution. You are also clearly wrong about there being two two potential targets as one is qualified with "for instance" meaning that it can't competently be interpreted as exlusive Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Horse Eye's Back Asilvering has been clear that they aren't changing their position, and that DRV is an appropriate venue for further discussion. Please respect that boundary. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not at all being clear about that, but if thats what you want we can can all go to DRV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the close several times. You don't like the explanation; that's fine. You're not forced to like it. But I absolutely have explained it. I don't know why you, as the delete !voter, would want to fight it, since a no-consensus close leaves it open for relisting and deletion, but you're not forced to accept it, either. DRV has been open to you this whole time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the second or third time I've ever contested a close, if you had compentently explained your position we wouldn't be at DRV. You're insisted on providing the bare minimum that you think needs to be provided at each step of the process and I just don't get it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back, the first relist comment said there was no consensus, there was a new type of !vote (for merge) following that one, it was again relisted as no consensus yet, and then you formalized the position you'd already taken at the beginning of the AfD. It was "no consensus" the entire time. I don't know how this outcome could possibly be a surprise. Again, I've said from the beginning that you're welcome to take it to DRV for a sanity check. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, the notice is below. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a biography here --24carly (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 24carly, welcome to wikipedia! The short answer is, I'm afraid, that you don't. Please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Hi, thank sfor your help with the History of the Jews in Madagascar. However, you forgot to move the talk page as well. Could you please fix that. Thank you so much! IZAK (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Thanks for letting me know! I've fixed that. -- asilvering (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: I was wondering if you could help out with another move of History of Moroccan Jews to the original title of History of the Jews in Morocco requiring admin help. See my statement at User talk:NAADAAN#History of the Jews in Morocco. In this case there was no WP:RM and the user who made the change has apologized [1] for making a move against the WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you so much! IZAK (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh for pete's sake. Ok, I've also move-protected the page. There's no good reason to move that without another RM anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Thanks for all your help. Thank you for helping me with the Wikipedia:Cleanup I am doing, fixing minor errors with articles in Category:Jewish history by country as I discover minor inconsistencies that need fixing. Here's another one I just came across: History of Jews in Somalia that needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Somalia because somewhere along the line someone changed it without any WP:RM and it therefore needs to adhere to the WP:CONSENSUS arrived at, at Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia#Requested move 5 June 2020 to KEEP the name/s "History of the Jews in ___" and to NOT change them, and at the recent decision at Talk:Jews in Madagascar#Requested move 1 November 2024 to move such articles to their correct titles of "History of the Jews in (country)". Sorry for the bother and thanks again for all your help with this task! IZAK (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like this article post-dates those discussions and was created at this location and no one noticed the problem until now. Since it doesn't seem likely to be contentious I've gone ahead and done a page swap, but if someone reverts me, that won't actually be out of process - you'll have to set up a proper RM for that. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! IZAK (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: This one stands out like a sore thumb: Georgian Jews should be History of the Jews in Georgia (country) as it originally was named. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK, can you open a WP:RM for this one? I don't think it's wholly uncontroversial. It's been at this title relatively briefly, but it looks like there's been dispute in the past over what the bit following "History of the Jews in..." ought to be. Along with the version you've suggested, there's History of the Jews in Georgia and History of the Jews in the Republic of Georgia as possibilities, and presumably others that haven't been tried yet or that I haven't found. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Good idea. Would it be too much bother if I asked you to set up the RM, I have not done it myself in a very long time. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've started the RM just now, and the bot will be by soon to do the rest. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Thank you so much for all your help. Much appreciated! IZAK (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of World War II weapons of Turkey. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I noticed you looked over my proposal draft for Glenner Anderon- Alaskan Radio DJ. I wanted to ask if you could help me with his early life location. He mentions much of the early life information on the podcast mentioned in the last paragraph. To add, I am his daughter, so many of these stories are fairly solidified both by witness and by his own word of mouth. Is there any way to cite that sort of information that has been discussed specifically on his podcast? Or should I delete his early life all together since its only an audio source? Thanks! Rea5145 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audio sources are fine - you just need to cite them! A reader needs to be able to verify that the information in the article is correct, so the source needs to be something that a reader can get a hold of (and not "his daughter knows this"). But I admit I was hoping for a secondary source that would help us more clearly establish that he meets our notability guidelines (see WP:GNG, WP:NBIO). Any secondary sources you can find would be of help there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering:

I'm requesting my pending changes reviewer permission to be removed from me. I now realize don't review them enough to justify having them. You're really the only admin I know, hence the request going on your talk page. Thanks! — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! If you want them back, should be no problem to re-request. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a single mother who is back in school. My daughter goes to Dean College in Franklin mass our car is no longer working. We could use all the help possible. I don’t want to have to have either one of us or both of us drop out of school because of a car. Denise lussier (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is now operating a ride service, I could use a ride to and from the eye doctor's on December 16th. 🚙 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Denise lussier, I'm just here to help with questions about Wikipedia, I'm afraid, but it looks like there are options for students at Dean College through Gatra GO: [2]. You might also try contacting the Registrar at Dean ([3]) - they won't be able to help you directly but they should know what other services they have for students and how to refer you to them. Good luck. -- asilvering (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asilvering. Can you check this SPI if you have any spare time? This looks like an obvious WP:DUCK but I am not sure if I have missed anything else. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I wondered where they'd gone. I'm not inclined to duck-block but a CU will swing by for a look soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks. Is it worth adding a CU request in this case? I never really ask for CU attention. Mellk (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no SPI expert, but I'd ask for one if it were me setting up the SPI. No one's told me off for that yet, anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have requested CU now. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Turns out there was another sock as well. I really hope I do not have to spend more time dealing with socks, I already spend more than enough time doing that. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I was on the Allied Invasion of Italy (1943) page,whilst searching for who said 17 september 1943 is the end date,I noticed a lot of revisions containing vandalism,the earliest i can find is here there are way more I have found throughout the history of the page and nobody ever even SEMI protected it UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to semi-protect this page. It isn't edited very often. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "edited very often" or "isn't edited very often" mean on wikipedia exactly? UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 22:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like,what average timelength between edits is considered often UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure if there's a general rule, since it also comes down to things like how visible the page is and how bad the edits are. WP:SEMIGUIDE has some more info. On the article you've linked, the last 50 edits go all the way back to January of this year. Whatever is happening there, it's not urgent. -- asilvering (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=844907130,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=851044027,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=851044281,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=851044581,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=851044925. UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34134904,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34901869,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34901941,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34902036,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34902125,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34902232,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34905806,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34905835,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34905998,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allied_invasion_of_Italy&direction=next&oldid=34906232, UnsungHistory (Questions or Concerns?) (See how I messed up) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page has been vandalised in the past. That happens to Wikipedia articles. It's part of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, heads up it seems like User:Hninsiphyutoxica is operating a WP:LOUTSOCK to avoid their topic block for the page Nang Khin Zay Yar.

They uploaded this image (again) to Commons, then added it to the article here, and previously here, under a different IP in the same range.

(ANI thread reminder in case you need to be reminded of the backstory: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Hninsiphyutoxica RachelTensions (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I semi protected X 12 hours pending check by Asilvering. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a;dlkfhadslf that is definitely not the result I hoped for with this experiment -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the thought that counts :)

I still have no idea what they're up to, dunno what's so special about a graduation photo of a Burmese model that warrants such cagey behaviour RachelTensions (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've altered the block on the account to be a mainspace-wide block and reset the autoblock. I don't really want to indefinitely semi-protect the article because this isn't harmful, exactly, it's just very stupid. And now we wait again, I guess. Any passing talk-page-stalking admins are welcome to take whatever action. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, asilvering,

I was just wondering what your reason was for closing some AFD discussion hours early. It didn't seem like there was disruption going on or a need to rush the process, it's not a race. These were not relisted discussions that are eligible to be closed early, they were just regular AFD discussions. I just thought you might have an explanation. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of one but there were others tonight that were closed 5 or 6 hours early: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kerh (1516). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm not sure why I closed that one early, since it only has two delete !votes. If you hadn't pointed that one out in specific, I'd have said that I was only closing the very snowy ones early (there were a bunch yesterday that had something like six delete !votes and really no possibility for a keep argument, let alone a successful one). That one is definitely an error. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @Deepfriedokra, can I call in a "you owe me one"? [4]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I suspect no good deed goes unpunished! Draft:Gayla Kraetsch Hartsough has been edited rather than started afresh and remains, in my view, inappropriate since it was submitted after editing in a state which did not allow acceptance. More as a courtesy to you and your act of generosity, I declined it with a substantial rationale rather than go for my gust instinct which was to put it out of its misery. I have told the autobiographer that it was as a courtesy to them. My day is now full to the brim of courtesy. It was a good deed. I think you did the right thing for the right reasons. I often wonder why helping folk here backfires! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it backfires more often than it helps, but I cling to that small % for whom it helps. And I try to remember that other people can read these interactions, and it forms their opinions on the site as a whole. Those silent readers who aren't causing problems can turn out to be good contributors. (I was one of them.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @asilvering,

I wanted to make a request about this AfD(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Anderson (model) (XFDcloser) if it can be restored as things have changed significantly since it was last deleted. I noticed the reason it was deleted was because of the verifiability and independence of the sources. I found a list of reliable Ghanaian sources according to(https:en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana) some of which has covered the subject significantly and in-depth. I hope you look into this and restore this article. Louisvmark (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure @Louisvmark, this was soft-deleted, so I can restore it and send it to userspace for you to work on it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @asilvering for restoring it to my userspace. I have made all the corrections(including correcting promotional tones), can you check if everything is good and if it is move it to the mainspace?. Louisvmark (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to draft for you - just hit the blue button to submit it for review if you think it's ready. I think it might be declined, but if that happens you will still be able to keep working on it and you can wait for more sources to come out, or go looking for if there are any you've missed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

cc: @Dan arndt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: is there any newspaper coverage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I've spent a bit more time looking into the sources on the draft, and it looks to me like the only one that is fully independent and also significant coverage is the Lion's Roar piece ([5]). So I think the better route forward for this information is to place it in Insight Meditation Society under a new section heading (as an editor with a WP:COI, you'll need to use Template:COI edit to propose the edit, rather than making it yourself directly). Then what we can do is create a redirect page from Barre Center for Buddhist Studies to that section heading. I understand that they're not the same organization, but that's fine - they're closely related enough to be covered in the same article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

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

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

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

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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