![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jclemens, it has been over three months since you last posted to this review. Please let me know whether you plan to return to it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Whedonesque screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Armin T. Wegner you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
K.e.coffman --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, in the AfD discussion for Imaginaria back in November, you found two sources for the topic which you held high as making the topic notable. Fair enough, however, since the AfD has closed nothing has changed on the article itself, so I wondered if you could, at one point, take some time to cleanup/rewrite the article using the sources? For reference: the AfD, source 1 (Motherboard), source 2 (Spoutly)]. Lordtobi ( ✉) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This has been languishing a while without a review, and I thought you might be interested in reviewing silicon. (I'm aware that there are comments on the talk page but I'm not sure I agree with all of them. I do fondly remember our interactions while you were reviewing Fe, N, and element 120. ^_^) Double sharp ( talk) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've received some feedback from the 2nd opinion request: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. How would you like to proceed? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The article
Armin T. Wegner you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Armin T. Wegner for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
K.e.coffman --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You're an inclusionist. I'm a deletionist. Would you be willing to work with me on Portable hole? The sourcing is terrible. Much of it is unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are low-quality. But I'm convinced it's a viable topic. Would appreciate any help you could give finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. What patents did you make? I am interested in that. (sorry for wasting your time, I'm very curious) Huff slush7264 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 15:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you please restore the expired {{ prod}}, Jeff Morrow (disambiguation), as additional individuals named Jeff Morrow have emerged.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 02:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Floyd Dryden Middle School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Harshil want to talk? 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Only after starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News (2nd nomination), I noticed that it was you who improved that article to decent standards a few years ago. For this and because I've seen you leave fair comments on AfDs, I invite you to join this particular AfD discussion. – sgeureka t• c 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 21:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WIRED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WIRED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Armin Wegner Older.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DartMUD, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DartMUD (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Jclemens! I don't know what drove you to make the really bad tasting speedy deletion on Vivien Keszthelyi article minutes after it has been voted on AfD as keep but I kindly but firmly request you to refrain from bad faith editing, stalking and other kinds of harrassment. If you dislike the community vote you can start walking the dispute resolution steps, mainly by starting to discuss your problems with your fellow editors. Putting gratuitous speedy on articles is really not the way it works. Thank you! -- grin ✎ 11:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
G5 also contains: "and that have no substantial edits by others." Which in this case is not relevant anymore, so I must agree Grin (BTW who is the founder of Hungarian national version of Wikipedia...) that there must be some background purpose why her enwiki article is under "permanent" deletion attacks. JSoos ( talk) 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
Could you check these edits? The page title no longer matches the first sentence. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! :) Do you have any future plans for this one? I'm thinking some folks like User:Daranios or User:Sariel Xilo might be able to find enough sources to resurrect it at some point, and I did add a couple of things to it when it was first userfied. BOZ ( talk) 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signal (podcast), you suggested that an article be built at Firefly fandom (as a target for merging the podcast). My instinct says there's enough out there to sustain an article, but were you serious as well? I've listed 24 potential sources (pulled from a historical version of Browncoat) at Talk:Firefly fandom#sources, and would happily take up the task if you think there's legitimately a place for it. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
On a tangential note, I haven't even begun to assess how much of the content at the work-in-progress User:BOZ/Games deletions might have been saved (or might still be resurrected) with a little WP:ATD. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol. Thanks for my laugh of the day : ) - jc37 18:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It is truly amazing how time has flown by. has it really been over 20 years since the 90s? Feels like a lot less... - jc37 08:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Seeing your comment at the Henry Kuttner deities discussion, I just wanted to let you know that the similar case of Ramsey Campbell deities is also up for deletion. Daranios ( talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You know, a couple situations of late had me wishing that we still had the mentorship programs the way we used to have. (I've looked around, things don't appear to be like they used to along those lines). I think there have been a few instances lately where I think that might have done more good than the RBI/ani merry-go-round, then >ban< - everyone out of the pool.
This isn't some poorly crafted subtle hint or anything, just an observation... I think you would have been very good at mentoring.
Hmm, in fact...
![]() |
The Mediator Barnstar | |
For your apparently excellent mentoring skills, and just for all that which you do, do. : ) - jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
Here's something shiny and well-earned : ) -
jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We recently contributed to the same DRV discussion, started by an editor with a particular interpretation of WP:NCORP. The consensus there, as at AFD, seems fairly overwhelmingly contrary to that editor's interpretation of that guideline. Without trying wiki-hound an editor who now says they have stepped away from editing for a while, than interpretation seems to have been used extensively to reject articles at AFC, based solely on that interpretation. Specifically, the editor believes their interpretation of WP:ORGIND means anything that might be construed as an interview (regardless of the independence of the interviewer) should be rejected as an independent source. In fact, that section of that guideline makes no reference to interviews at all. There are many, but recent ones include this one, and this one. Both include extensive references and were rejected because of this interpretation alone. You seemed to be across the substance and I didn't want to drag this to WP:ANI. Your thoughts? St★lwart 111 02:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
" I don't know why you appear to have a problem with me personally but its wearing thin.". This was never personal, in fact I ended my opening remarks there by stating clearly that, "I don't think the editors responsible are being deliberately disruptive". It was intentionally pluralised. My interpretation was, as I explained above, that HighKing had had a rough couple of days at DRV and AFD, frustrated that his view of the application of NCORP was at odds with the community (which extended to suggestions that he be trouted - not from me - for bringing that article to DRV at all). I saw his conduct at AFC in that context; both of the above rejections and a couple of others came a short time after that DRV thread was started and several other comments I highlighted were made as that discussion continued, and continued to devolve into strong consensus against HighKing. Which is (again) why I approached it the way I did. I can accept that in the context of the pile-on at DRV, the rejection of his edits at NCORP (again, not by me), and a couple of other AFDs where he was one of the lone voices for deletion, my concerns here and then at NCORP might have been the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back. They weren't meant to be that way, and again, I thought that we were dealing with legacy edits from someone who had become fed up and thrown in the towel, making some pointy AFC rejections on his way out. I stand by my view of the rejections themselves, but I would hope HighKing can see my concerns for what they were, as they appeared to me, in the context of his editing and actions at the time. If only as an olive branch, I speak fluent Australian, and see HighKing's use of the word "fuck" (and other such things) as tasteful seasoning sprinkled on otherwise impassioned self-defence. St★lwart 111 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024#Ref desks edits and commons:User talk:Mysterymanblue#Signature, etc. AnonMoos ( talk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Good morning Sir! After seeing your justification in [5], I felt that you are the only person who could help with Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. Sir, there a lot of people in Wikipedia who are very WP:BITEy and do not allow the new editors to contribute in Wikipedia even when they do not cause any disruptive editing. In Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana, almost everyone tried the level best to make the article as notable and efficient for a Wikipedia article but I do not know why every reviewer gave the comment not notable. Sir, it is not really possible to give only reviews about that show as a reliable reference because not every Indian newspaper gives only reviews about the tv shows in their articles. It will always have to do with launch dates, actors and other stuff. I don't know why the reviewers do not understand that and don't give the article any chance? I can understand the problems caused by disruptive edits of people but does that mean this show Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana does not even deserve an article in Wikipedia? This show has been on-air for the past two months and has satisfied both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG but the reviewers are giving some or the other excuses and declining the submissions. They are saying that the people are paid and are promoting the show. Sir, I don't know about the others but I'm neither paid nor do I want to promote the show but I am a fan of the show. So I humbly request if you can please offer some help with regards to Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. If you cannot help atleast can you consult it to an administrator who can help with it? Thank you-- 117.193.129.18 ( talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m fine with your revert. I know it probably looks somewhat suspicious but I wasn’t trying to smear anyone and added it before I knew the deletion review even existed. I’ve simply been a little overzealous with redacting obnoxious behavior but I’ll try not to do so from now on. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Show Me the Father, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Show Me the Father is the fourth consecutive film produced by the Kendrick brothers to earn an "A+" grade on CinemaScore? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Show Me the Father. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Show Me the Father), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I know it's a long list, but it is sectioned, so I am letting you know that User:BOZ/Games deletions is nearly finished in case there is anything you would want to give a shot at. :) (I'm going to start a separate list for D&D fictional elements, probably next week, since that will be very long.) BOZ ( talk) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am checking some older talk page protections and I'm sorry if I already sent you a confusing notification. In your case this is about Talk:Yelena Dembo. My understanding is that even if you are no longer an administrator, your opinion on the matter is still important. You can answer me here or at User talk:176.247.159.174, where I am keeping a more stable list. Thanks. 176.247.137.106 ( talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for both respecting the “delete” consensus and treating the “keep” side with sensitivity at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15! Dronebogus ( talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
Chicdat removed your proposal on the grounds that the period for new proposals had ended, but seems to have neglected to inform you of this. (It's now on the talk page, though I'm not sure what the point of that is.) Since your proposal shares all important features with the previous proposal 6E, I invite you to support 6E instead. -- JBL ( talk) 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the Family Research Council article lede, inclusion of which has an explicit community consensus established by RFC, is wildly inappropriate sour grapes and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Family Research Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're on at least your fourth or fifth revert at this point; self-revert or I will file a 3RRNB report.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 05:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:ANI related to your behavior at Family Research Council. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Hello, I saw your comment
here: higher standard than the GNG is required for companies, which itself not a policy-compliant position
(my highlight). I'm intrigued.
One could argue that
WP:NORG is perhaps self-inconsistent. It starts off with These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals
which seems reasonable. But then it goes into some pretty stringent criteria,
WP:SIRS, Significant coverage of the company itself, etc. We therefore see arguments against notability for organisations with 100-year history, 0.3 million employees. and listed on stock exchanges, all because nobody has written enough analytical pieces about this sort of 'fixture' company. This seems less than rational.
So it would be good to make WP:NORG more policy compliant. I can see the rationale behind WP:MEDRS, and WP:WHYN make sense. But the WP:NORG stuff seems less justified. Where to start doing something about this? Chumpih t 10:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 9:02 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <ca wikimedia dot org> wrote:
Dear Ikip, This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation (Foundation) has globally banned you from Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by the Foundation, Wikimedia Cloud Services, and the Wikimedia blog) as well as any in-person events sponsored or funded by the Foundation including any events hosted by Wikimedia Affiliates using funds from the Foundation. You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists. This ban is placed against you personally, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”). We understand that this communication may be surprising and difficult to read, and we regret the necessity. We are taking this action due to the concern of the safety of our users and the integrity of the projects, and in compliance with the WMF Global ban policy. Based on our review, we determined that you engaged in behavior that violates our Terms of Use specifically section 4. We have received credible complaints regarding your conduct in Wikimedia projects which we feel on review requires this action. As part of this process, your username will be listed as a globally banned user here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_globally_banned_users. Our normal practice is that only account ban information will be made public while other information communicated to you in this notice will not be published elsewhere. If necessary for the defense of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia users, or the public, the Foundation reserves the right to later publish this information. Under some circumstances, you have the option to appeal with the Case Review Committee. You can read more about this process here: < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Case_Review_Committee>. The role of the case review committee is to provide an opportunity for a second review by community members. If the case review committee does view your case as eligible, they have direct access to our investigation documentation for review. While we regret that we are unable to provide any evidence around this investigation beyond the information provided here, you have an opportunity to reach out to the case review committee if you wish for this type of review. Sincerely, Trust & Safety Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.122.151 ( talk) 19:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ ( talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ ( talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've PRODed this, it was linked from MM's works template, but as you can see, the article is just a tiny stub about some occult topic, with nothing about his works. I doubt there is much to rescue here, but feel free to double check. PS. I deprodded this, I was too hasty - this is notable but not in the context of MM's works. Instead, I've removed it from Template:Michael Moorcock (as the article did not mention anything related to MM). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, just wanted to let you know that I saw t the rationale that you presented to Sandstein in December prior to a potential DRV, and I wanted to let you know that your assessment was broadly correct. Because of that AfD discussion, I opened a discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applied to whole articles ( consensus is that it doesn't), and recreated this article in prose format (and I actually found many sources beyond the ones brought up during the AfD). I guess I'm writing to let you know that I believe you were right in your DRV notification, and this is coming from someone who often disagrees with your AfD assessments. So, I guess it wasn't all in vain. Cheers! Pilaz ( talk) 16:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there Jclemens. Just stopping by after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Water Rats characters to say if you (or anyone else) would ever like the text restored to your userspace to consider merging some content into Water Rats (TV series), just let me know and I'll happily restore it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, as the closer of the discussion. I hope you're staying well during these crazy times. Best, Ajpolino ( talk) 01:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the bot was not archiving undated entries, so I'm clearing them without further comment. Jclemens ( talk) 23:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I had been closely following the Signpost DRV with an eye to possible closing it. I wouldn't really disagree with anything you wrote in your close. However, I think the totality of the close fails to reflect the consensus reached. By my count around 60% of editors endorsed the close, though some did as you note express mixed feelings. However your close is, by my read, entirely focused on the concerns and thoughts of the those who feel something was wrong with the close and little mention is given to those who support it. Now some of this was justified by those who also endorsed it. So again I don't disagree with anything you've written, but it does fail to note the support, on the whole, the closes had and thus I think needs revision to accurately reflect that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Problematic close, but endorsed (no further action needed). As amended you now note the numerical endorsement but again my point was that the thinking of those who endorse it was largely absent from the text (outside of some discussion of Speedy Keep criteria which was more in depth than the DRV had itself about that criteria) and a numerical addition at the end seems to just reinforce the idea that you weighted those people away which is not what I think you did. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you! Extremely thoughtful and thorough close with excellent summaries. Secondly, one clarification regarding this:
this was an improper NAC in that the closer lacked awareness of this foreseeable outcome
Whilst to me it did feel highly cut-and-dried when I was closing it, but I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part. I was very expectant that should it be contentious, the closure would just be reverted and the discussion continued (especially as it was an NAC), or in this case a DRV would take place. However, I didn't expect thermonuclear Wiki-war across several venues with everyone, including myself,
everyone beating the horse beyond death and into a slushy pulp of nothingness with no consensus on anything, holier-than-thou debates, constant abject refusal to listen to each other and work an actual solution, and a total grotesque mess ensuing. Maybe assuming people wouldn't get as riled up as they did was a flop on my part, but a good lesson - bold moves can result in bold messes!
Anyway, thank you again. Best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part... which is precisely why it was a bad move. See WP:BADNAC#2: "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."
Churches of Christ has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
![]()
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
The 5-way merger of the Demon Princes novel series occurred as a result of an AfD discussion. We observed that the articles for the individual novels were WP:JUSTPLOT, with the exception of a couple which also had a review or two. I proposed merging them all into the main page and others approved. The main series page now has a short synopsis of each novel, as well as the review information from the pages which had reviews. I believe this constitutes a proper encyclopedic treatment of this series and see no reason why the mergers should have been reverted. As of now, they're back to being WP:JUSTPLOT, which is against policy. I'm willing to discuss this here or on the article's talk page, where I've linked a discussion I had w/ another editor about the same issue. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You deserve it 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I thought #2 was spot on. Too much "Wikipedia the game", and not enough article improvement.
Only speaking for myself, I will say that I find it difficult anymore to try to have consensual discussions with other editors in regards to article edits. I'm happy to roll up my sleeves and join in a collaborative effort, but I keep encountering situations that go well beyond ownership. There seems to be a deeply rooted institutionally supported intransigence. "If I just listen and talk with someone on a talk page, they'll eventually go away and I'll do what I want later". It's like certain editors have created a formula to use our various policies of collegiate open-ness in order to prevent collaborative building of the encyclopedia. Even if what they are doing is not only contrary to various policies, but flagrantly so. "I want it, and that's all that matters".
I don't like the idea of putting on my admin hat and doing revert, block, ignore. I'd rather give someone a chance and try to explain the policies they are violating, etc., so that they might develop into a better editor. But to say they are disinterested, puts it mildly.
It does, I am sad to say, make it rather easy to be less-then-motivated to prioritize editing on Wikipedia, and just stay mostly in reader mode, when real life allows.
Anyway, I just wanted to express that I liked what you wrote. And didn't think clicking a "like" expressed it well enough : )
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
>>> Extorc. talk 18:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.>>> Extorc. talk 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw your comment here. I think you made a fair evaluation of the AFD process and the debate between deletion, inclusion, and all the options in between. Everyone wants an encyclopedia filled with good articles and there can be reasonable disagreements about how to achieve that.
I have also noticed several times where your opinion on a deletion discussion has been outside of the consensus about what is suitable for Wikipedia, and the content is deleted/redirected over your misinterpretations of policy and/or evidence. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] These are only the most recent examples where you have found yourself outside of the norm for how Wikipedia treats content.
My intent isn't to criticize you for being out of step with WP:CONSENSUS. My intent is to draw attention to what we consider to be "reasonable" disagreement. It is completely inevitable that every editor will find themselves outside of the general consensus, especially if they are wading into conflict resolution processes like AFD. Wikipedia isn't a game and we're not trying to keep score, but I think we are both "right" far more often than we are "wrong", and that makes us both basically reasonable. For myself, sometimes there is a consensus to keep a stand alone article despite my AFD nomination. I see article improvement as a win for the entire encyclopedia, and most reasonable editors should see it that way.
Where I think you have crossed the line into unreasonable is when you do the opposite of WP:NPA, and comment on the contributor, instead of focusing on the content. For example, asking an editor "how do you expect to be taken seriously" [12] has no constructive place in the discussion process, and only serves to heighten the dispute into something personal. Similarly, you are going against the advice at WP:NPA when you say an AFD makes me look bad, or call it a failure of my competence. Let alone feeling so strongly as to take the content dispute onto my user page. It actually takes less effort to focus on the content, and abstain from going after editors personally.
While I am here, it is also bad faith use of WP:BUREAUCRACY to demand people shut down processes in order to try to control the outcome. Especially when you are experienced enough to know that it's Wikipedia policy to allow those processes to continue until they reach a WP:CONSENSUS, and that your calls for a shut down carries zero policy weight.
Again, I think there's room for reasonable disagreement here. We have differing opinions about what qualifies for a stand alone article on Wikipedia. I am asking you to focus on the content, and I think that's a reasonable, request based on the most essential Wikipedia conduct policies. If you can't learn to focus on content, I'm going to have to ask you to disengage from content disputes with me altogether. Thanks. Jontesta ( talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
On 2 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lifemark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite the commercial success of previous Kendrick Brothers films, star Kirk Cameron said that Lifemark was unable to secure a distributor due to its pro-life stance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lifemark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Lifemark), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit removed the characterization of National Review, Baptist Messenger, World (magazine), and National Catholic Register as being Christian and conservative media sources. I was wondering what your objection to those adjectives might be, (the main meaning being that the reviews mentioned are not from the usual movie-industry sources like Variety (magazine), The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood). Also, that first sentence references the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score + the 5 critics' reviews there (Jackie K. Cooper, Michael Medved, The Independent Critic, Aisle Seat, NYC Movie Guru) but doesn't cite their actual reviews, or cite a link to RT, it instead cites the other reviews subsequently mentioned in the sentence. Shearonink ( talk) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?.
109.111.237.2 (
talk) 14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You should be indefinitely blocked for this transphobic hate speech and I think you know that. I wish you were still an admin so someone could take you to Arbcom and have you stripped of your status. Unfortunately for you, TNT will not be subject to any sanction because Arbcom is aware of the ramifications for it. The best you can do now is apologize in the ANI discussion we will start for your CBAN. Your apology won’t keep you from being banned, but it will at least allow you to save face. No pride for some of us without liberation for all of us ( talk) 00:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure we all have thick skin; I guess we have to. I'm sorry that we cannot do a better job of protecting our editors and administrators. Drmies ( talk) 01:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Just letting you know that the redirect at Donald X. Vaccarino is up for RFD. I figure you might have some input as the former article is in your userspace at User:Jclemens/Donald X. Vaccarino. BOZ ( talk) 15:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Jontesta, since you have politely requested that I cease using your talk page to educate you in the appropriate use of deletion processes, I must necessarily and regretfully pursue any future perceived failures as user conduct issues. That is, when you've been told your conduct is inappropriate, and told me to stop telling you it is, I have no other option. Mind you, this doesn't involve our disagreements about notability or inclusion--you'll note that I have those sorts of disagreements with other editors all the time that don't involve me suggesting their conduct violates Wikipedia expectations--but rather 1) your repeated use of materially false statements in AfD nominations and 2) the inappropriate PROD nomination of articles where any competent editor should perceive that deletion would be controversial. What you have been asked to do, (for those viewing this who don't want to go digging) is 1) Make accurate statements in AfD nominations: don't say no coverage exists when it clearly does and don't say a BEFORE search found nothing when my BEFORE search clearly finds plenty to consider, and 2) Follow PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.
with a reasonable definition of what expected might include, to include the insight gained from prior deletion discussions that attracted even one contrary opinion. I sincerely hope that the problematic behavior is never repeated and nothing further comes of this.
Jclemens (
talk) 07:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context.(and that is me quoting you), was a materially false statement with respect to Miraz. You never retracted, refactored, amended, or apologized for it--at least not that I've seen. If I've overlooked you doing any one of those things, please show me what I missed and accept my apologies in advance.
There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic.as if it were a factual statement, rather than your personal opinion based on inadequate searching. You further stated
This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject.and I demonstrated that a full 25% of the article, 5 of 19 sources, clearly do not fit that description. Further, by asserting that in the nomination statement, it suggests that you believe that having a number of primary sources in a fictional topic is an argument for deletion, which is not the case either.
Hello, I found you via the Computer Security WikiProject and was hoping you could help me out. I posted a few requests on the talk page for Emsisoft, an anti-malware company, just to fix a few bad sources like press releases, blogs, etc. I have a COI (and declared it there too) - are you able to review them? Talk:Emsisoft#article update proposals Thanks. Sportsfan4646 ( talk) 19:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 9. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
BilledMammal (
talk) 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Christians believe that Jesus resurrected Lazarusor
Jesus resurrected Lazarus. This isn't true; sources that say the former, regardless of the beliefs of the author, can be reliable, while I do not believe sources that say the latter can be.
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jclemens! I noticed that you reverted the redirecting of Sally Carrera with the edit summary "Challenged PROD". I'm a bit confused by this as the article was PRODed 7 days prior to being redirected with no objection. So why did you challenge the passed PROD? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I've prodded Fairy (Artemis Fowl) and Magic in Artemis Fowl and I may be prodding more from this series if the articles are very poor (otherwise they'll be at AfD). Yes, those two can be redirected to List of concepts in Artemis Fowl, but seriously, they are very poor as a searchable term, and b, the target will end up and AfD shortly anyway, so why bother. Almost all of AF content I am seeing now is terribly fancrufty and unlikely to be redeemed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool, what did you find? BOZ ( talk) 04:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nekivik ( talk) 08:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I've prodded Matador (Marvel Comics), Jazinda and Southpaw (comics). Feel free to redirect or deprod if you think any deserves a hearing at AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
New comic prod: Young Marvelman. Feel free to redirect to the target I suggested unless you think this needs a full AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at your userpage yesterday and I noticed a section with this title. I've brought back quite a few articles from deletion or redirection myself (most of them video game articles, but a lot of other games and a few comics articles and other things) and that reminded me of one of the ideas I have in my pipeline for the future. I'm thinking of what it would take to have a WikiProject called maybe Revive or Restore with the purpose of bringing back articles with fixable issues. We have projects like Women in Red which encourages article creation, and ARS which encourages saving articles from threat of deletion, but as far as I know we don't really have anywhere that focuses on "What if this was a mistake and this article should never have been gotten rid of?" I'm not expecting a high traffic WikiProject, but maybe with a few dedicated volunteers at any given time with access to good sources, and a noticeboard of good potential candidate articles to work on, we can make an impact on fixing past mistakes? BOZ ( talk) 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Heh, I wasn't aware of that essay. When I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see something advising people not to post rants in the wee hours of the morning :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, any TPS who may still be watching, this is why Alternatives to Deletion matter, and why delete-then-redirect is never a good idea after an AfD based on notability:
The only problem with the whole evolution is that there were RS'es from IGN and The AV Club easily present on the first page of Google results the entire time.
Because this was redirected with history intact, it was easy to fix and un-redirect the article: the fundamentally flawed AfD (neither the nom or the two redirect !voters appeared to be aware of the reviews) ultimately did no damage. Had the article been deleted and then redirected, correcting this error would have required an admin and a whole lot more work. As is, this is a "near miss" from which we should all learn.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Please stop posting to my talk page. Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. AfDs are for things where editing cannot improve a page. I demonstrated that three pages could be improved by editing, therefore your original nominations were not in the best interests of Wikipedia.
Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for, implies that you did a search for RS reviews. Thus, when other editors saw your statement and saw no RS reviews in the article, they agreed that the episodes in question should be redirected or deleted. (As an aside, can I confirm that we both agree that any article on a TV episode with multiple independent, non-trivial, secondary RS reviews for that episode should be kept as an independent article?) I'll note that you didn't suggest redirection in your boilerplate, even though it noted
In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show, indicating you were aware that each episode was part of a larger group (season or show) which would have been an appropriate redirect or merge target.
For Games (seaQuest DSV) and Dream Weaver (seaQuest DSV) before PROD/AfD? Note other episodes from Template:seaQuest DSV have been redirected as they were 100% unreferenced. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to get your opinion on some episodes. There are a lot of episodes that other editors have added the notability tag to that have at least 2 reviews cited. Is that enough for an episode to be kept and have the tag removed? I have seen others argue that it isn't enough and some have redirected them. I know 2 reviews are enough for films to be considered notable, but I cannot find a consensus on TV episodes. Here are a few:
All the Way (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Bring On the Night (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Lizards (Heroes)
Living the Dream (House)
The Line (Heroes)
Him (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Help (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
There are more, but I wanted to give you an idea of what I am seeing. Some of these have been redirected in the past, but that was reverted. But, the notability tag remains as there is still some who question whether 2 reviews are enough. I would like to have it decided if they are notable or not and either have the tags removed or the episodes redirected. I have removed the tags before on episodes that have 2 reviews, and other editors claim that is insufficent and have restored the tag.
Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Friendly ping, in case you'd miss it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Balthier. 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Nice catch on my edit about James Dobson. In a source, I read a statement about "the APA's list of mental disorders" and I assumed this referred to the DSM. I was was incorrect. No, he was never a member of American Psychiatric Association (as far as I know) only the American Psychological Association. Thank you for your careful attention! Jno.skinner ( talk) 18:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Jclemens. On WT:N, you wrote:
This entire discussion is elitist and more concerned with boundary-drawing to improve some authors' sense of self-importance. This is a recurring problem in Wikipedia, from POKEMON onward. This is not the same as a V or NPOV problem, this is a desire to limit topics to those for whom elite, socially acceptable articles--as in, NOT pop culture--can be written. It's a navel-gazing exercise which ignores our mission and arguably drives our editor retention issues: If you want a volunteer-driven encyclopedia, then you can expect some quality standards, but disallow editors from doing what they like, and they're gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I'm an elitist. I think that an utterly insane proportion of our biographies are biographies of sportspeople.
Personally, I'm British. My country isn't really known for its sporting prowess, so much as for unjustly conquering more than half the globe, exploring the world and stealing its resources, for its many wars with France, and for being the birthplace of the industrial revolution with many technological and scientific advances.
But as of right now:
Wikipedia literally has more articles in Category:Footballers from Bristol than we do in Category:British inventors.
My position is that we have a huge, deep, sprawling problem with sports biography proliferation and it desperately needs to be reined in.— S Marshall T/ C 07:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias - People are going to write about what they want to write about.
Should we really be wiping out work that people are willing to do - or creating ultra-stringent rules for inclusion of - because we want more of something else?
We've gone from an encyclopedia which includes the world's knowledge to seemingly only as much knowledge as certain factions will allow.
That said, is there something we can do about it?
As we build up more and more policy tracts limiting inclusion, (and I say this as someone who has contributed to, and experienced, a LOT of policy discussion over the years) I wonder where Wikipedia will be once the low-hanging fruit is removed. And the better question - Will that still be a Wikipedia that has the large usage it does now, or will the world move on, like they have so many other internet platforms.
I don't know.
But I am seriously concerned about Wikipedia's future.
I think we very well could be one Google fork away from becoming irrelevant. And that concerns me. Once the "wiki-way" is gone, I don't think it'll ever be back... - jc37 14:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jclemens, it has been over three months since you last posted to this review. Please let me know whether you plan to return to it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Whedonesque screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Armin T. Wegner you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
K.e.coffman --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there, in the AfD discussion for Imaginaria back in November, you found two sources for the topic which you held high as making the topic notable. Fair enough, however, since the AfD has closed nothing has changed on the article itself, so I wondered if you could, at one point, take some time to cleanup/rewrite the article using the sources? For reference: the AfD, source 1 (Motherboard), source 2 (Spoutly)]. Lordtobi ( ✉) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This has been languishing a while without a review, and I thought you might be interested in reviewing silicon. (I'm aware that there are comments on the talk page but I'm not sure I agree with all of them. I do fondly remember our interactions while you were reviewing Fe, N, and element 120. ^_^) Double sharp ( talk) 16:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've received some feedback from the 2nd opinion request: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. How would you like to proceed? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The article
Armin T. Wegner you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Armin T. Wegner for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
K.e.coffman --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You're an inclusionist. I'm a deletionist. Would you be willing to work with me on Portable hole? The sourcing is terrible. Much of it is unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are low-quality. But I'm convinced it's a viable topic. Would appreciate any help you could give finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. What patents did you make? I am interested in that. (sorry for wasting your time, I'm very curious) Huff slush7264 15:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 15:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Could you please restore the expired {{ prod}}, Jeff Morrow (disambiguation), as additional individuals named Jeff Morrow have emerged.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 02:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Floyd Dryden Middle School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Harshil want to talk? 04:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Only after starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Network News (2nd nomination), I noticed that it was you who improved that article to decent standards a few years ago. For this and because I've seen you leave fair comments on AfDs, I invite you to join this particular AfD discussion. – sgeureka t• c 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ ( talk) 21:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WIRED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WIRED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Armin Wegner Older.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DartMUD, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DartMUD (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello Jclemens! I don't know what drove you to make the really bad tasting speedy deletion on Vivien Keszthelyi article minutes after it has been voted on AfD as keep but I kindly but firmly request you to refrain from bad faith editing, stalking and other kinds of harrassment. If you dislike the community vote you can start walking the dispute resolution steps, mainly by starting to discuss your problems with your fellow editors. Putting gratuitous speedy on articles is really not the way it works. Thank you! -- grin ✎ 11:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
G5 also contains: "and that have no substantial edits by others." Which in this case is not relevant anymore, so I must agree Grin (BTW who is the founder of Hungarian national version of Wikipedia...) that there must be some background purpose why her enwiki article is under "permanent" deletion attacks. JSoos ( talk) 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
Could you check these edits? The page title no longer matches the first sentence. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! :) Do you have any future plans for this one? I'm thinking some folks like User:Daranios or User:Sariel Xilo might be able to find enough sources to resurrect it at some point, and I did add a couple of things to it when it was first userfied. BOZ ( talk) 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signal (podcast), you suggested that an article be built at Firefly fandom (as a target for merging the podcast). My instinct says there's enough out there to sustain an article, but were you serious as well? I've listed 24 potential sources (pulled from a historical version of Browncoat) at Talk:Firefly fandom#sources, and would happily take up the task if you think there's legitimately a place for it. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
On a tangential note, I haven't even begun to assess how much of the content at the work-in-progress User:BOZ/Games deletions might have been saved (or might still be resurrected) with a little WP:ATD. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Lol. Thanks for my laugh of the day : ) - jc37 18:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It is truly amazing how time has flown by. has it really been over 20 years since the 90s? Feels like a lot less... - jc37 08:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Seeing your comment at the Henry Kuttner deities discussion, I just wanted to let you know that the similar case of Ramsey Campbell deities is also up for deletion. Daranios ( talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You know, a couple situations of late had me wishing that we still had the mentorship programs the way we used to have. (I've looked around, things don't appear to be like they used to along those lines). I think there have been a few instances lately where I think that might have done more good than the RBI/ani merry-go-round, then >ban< - everyone out of the pool.
This isn't some poorly crafted subtle hint or anything, just an observation... I think you would have been very good at mentoring.
Hmm, in fact...
![]() |
The Mediator Barnstar | |
For your apparently excellent mentoring skills, and just for all that which you do, do. : ) - jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC) |
Here's something shiny and well-earned : ) -
jc37 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We recently contributed to the same DRV discussion, started by an editor with a particular interpretation of WP:NCORP. The consensus there, as at AFD, seems fairly overwhelmingly contrary to that editor's interpretation of that guideline. Without trying wiki-hound an editor who now says they have stepped away from editing for a while, than interpretation seems to have been used extensively to reject articles at AFC, based solely on that interpretation. Specifically, the editor believes their interpretation of WP:ORGIND means anything that might be construed as an interview (regardless of the independence of the interviewer) should be rejected as an independent source. In fact, that section of that guideline makes no reference to interviews at all. There are many, but recent ones include this one, and this one. Both include extensive references and were rejected because of this interpretation alone. You seemed to be across the substance and I didn't want to drag this to WP:ANI. Your thoughts? St★lwart 111 02:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
" I don't know why you appear to have a problem with me personally but its wearing thin.". This was never personal, in fact I ended my opening remarks there by stating clearly that, "I don't think the editors responsible are being deliberately disruptive". It was intentionally pluralised. My interpretation was, as I explained above, that HighKing had had a rough couple of days at DRV and AFD, frustrated that his view of the application of NCORP was at odds with the community (which extended to suggestions that he be trouted - not from me - for bringing that article to DRV at all). I saw his conduct at AFC in that context; both of the above rejections and a couple of others came a short time after that DRV thread was started and several other comments I highlighted were made as that discussion continued, and continued to devolve into strong consensus against HighKing. Which is (again) why I approached it the way I did. I can accept that in the context of the pile-on at DRV, the rejection of his edits at NCORP (again, not by me), and a couple of other AFDs where he was one of the lone voices for deletion, my concerns here and then at NCORP might have been the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back. They weren't meant to be that way, and again, I thought that we were dealing with legacy edits from someone who had become fed up and thrown in the towel, making some pointy AFC rejections on his way out. I stand by my view of the rejections themselves, but I would hope HighKing can see my concerns for what they were, as they appeared to me, in the context of his editing and actions at the time. If only as an olive branch, I speak fluent Australian, and see HighKing's use of the word "fuck" (and other such things) as tasteful seasoning sprinkled on otherwise impassioned self-defence. St★lwart 111 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
See User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive024#Ref desks edits and commons:User talk:Mysterymanblue#Signature, etc. AnonMoos ( talk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Good morning Sir! After seeing your justification in [5], I felt that you are the only person who could help with Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. Sir, there a lot of people in Wikipedia who are very WP:BITEy and do not allow the new editors to contribute in Wikipedia even when they do not cause any disruptive editing. In Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana, almost everyone tried the level best to make the article as notable and efficient for a Wikipedia article but I do not know why every reviewer gave the comment not notable. Sir, it is not really possible to give only reviews about that show as a reliable reference because not every Indian newspaper gives only reviews about the tv shows in their articles. It will always have to do with launch dates, actors and other stuff. I don't know why the reviewers do not understand that and don't give the article any chance? I can understand the problems caused by disruptive edits of people but does that mean this show Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana does not even deserve an article in Wikipedia? This show has been on-air for the past two months and has satisfied both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG but the reviewers are giving some or the other excuses and declining the submissions. They are saying that the people are paid and are promoting the show. Sir, I don't know about the others but I'm neither paid nor do I want to promote the show but I am a fan of the show. So I humbly request if you can please offer some help with regards to Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. If you cannot help atleast can you consult it to an administrator who can help with it? Thank you-- 117.193.129.18 ( talk) 12:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m fine with your revert. I know it probably looks somewhat suspicious but I wasn’t trying to smear anyone and added it before I knew the deletion review even existed. I’ve simply been a little overzealous with redacting obnoxious behavior but I’ll try not to do so from now on. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Show Me the Father, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Show Me the Father is the fourth consecutive film produced by the Kendrick brothers to earn an "A+" grade on CinemaScore? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Show Me the Father. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Show Me the Father), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I know it's a long list, but it is sectioned, so I am letting you know that User:BOZ/Games deletions is nearly finished in case there is anything you would want to give a shot at. :) (I'm going to start a separate list for D&D fictional elements, probably next week, since that will be very long.) BOZ ( talk) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am checking some older talk page protections and I'm sorry if I already sent you a confusing notification. In your case this is about Talk:Yelena Dembo. My understanding is that even if you are no longer an administrator, your opinion on the matter is still important. You can answer me here or at User talk:176.247.159.174, where I am keeping a more stable list. Thanks. 176.247.137.106 ( talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Thank you for both respecting the “delete” consensus and treating the “keep” side with sensitivity at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15! Dronebogus ( talk) 11:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC) |
Chicdat removed your proposal on the grounds that the period for new proposals had ended, but seems to have neglected to inform you of this. (It's now on the talk page, though I'm not sure what the point of that is.) Since your proposal shares all important features with the previous proposal 6E, I invite you to support 6E instead. -- JBL ( talk) 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Your unilateral removal of longstanding, well-sourced material from the Family Research Council article lede, inclusion of which has an explicit community consensus established by RFC, is wildly inappropriate sour grapes and violates policy. That your proposed addition of material to the lede has been challenged does not permit you to ignore established community consensus. If you want to remove mention of the SPLC from the lede, you'll need to open an RFC and change that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 21:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Family Research Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're on at least your fourth or fifth revert at this point; self-revert or I will file a 3RRNB report.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 05:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:ANI related to your behavior at Family Research Council. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Hello, I saw your comment
here: higher standard than the GNG is required for companies, which itself not a policy-compliant position
(my highlight). I'm intrigued.
One could argue that
WP:NORG is perhaps self-inconsistent. It starts off with These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals
which seems reasonable. But then it goes into some pretty stringent criteria,
WP:SIRS, Significant coverage of the company itself, etc. We therefore see arguments against notability for organisations with 100-year history, 0.3 million employees. and listed on stock exchanges, all because nobody has written enough analytical pieces about this sort of 'fixture' company. This seems less than rational.
So it would be good to make WP:NORG more policy compliant. I can see the rationale behind WP:MEDRS, and WP:WHYN make sense. But the WP:NORG stuff seems less justified. Where to start doing something about this? Chumpih t 10:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 9:02 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety <ca wikimedia dot org> wrote:
Dear Ikip, This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation (Foundation) has globally banned you from Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by the Foundation, Wikimedia Cloud Services, and the Wikimedia blog) as well as any in-person events sponsored or funded by the Foundation including any events hosted by Wikimedia Affiliates using funds from the Foundation. You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists. This ban is placed against you personally, not against a particular username. It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”). We understand that this communication may be surprising and difficult to read, and we regret the necessity. We are taking this action due to the concern of the safety of our users and the integrity of the projects, and in compliance with the WMF Global ban policy. Based on our review, we determined that you engaged in behavior that violates our Terms of Use specifically section 4. We have received credible complaints regarding your conduct in Wikimedia projects which we feel on review requires this action. As part of this process, your username will be listed as a globally banned user here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_globally_banned_users. Our normal practice is that only account ban information will be made public while other information communicated to you in this notice will not be published elsewhere. If necessary for the defense of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia users, or the public, the Foundation reserves the right to later publish this information. Under some circumstances, you have the option to appeal with the Case Review Committee. You can read more about this process here: < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety/Case_Review_Committee>. The role of the case review committee is to provide an opportunity for a second review by community members. If the case review committee does view your case as eligible, they have direct access to our investigation documentation for review. While we regret that we are unable to provide any evidence around this investigation beyond the information provided here, you have an opportunity to reach out to the case review committee if you wish for this type of review. Sincerely, Trust & Safety Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.122.151 ( talk) 19:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you see anything that could help with Ethan Skemp which is at PROD? BOZ ( talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
ENnie Awards was just PRODded and unPRODded - I will see what else I can find for that one. BOZ ( talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've PRODed this, it was linked from MM's works template, but as you can see, the article is just a tiny stub about some occult topic, with nothing about his works. I doubt there is much to rescue here, but feel free to double check. PS. I deprodded this, I was too hasty - this is notable but not in the context of MM's works. Instead, I've removed it from Template:Michael Moorcock (as the article did not mention anything related to MM). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jclemens, just wanted to let you know that I saw t the rationale that you presented to Sandstein in December prior to a potential DRV, and I wanted to let you know that your assessment was broadly correct. Because of that AfD discussion, I opened a discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applied to whole articles ( consensus is that it doesn't), and recreated this article in prose format (and I actually found many sources beyond the ones brought up during the AfD). I guess I'm writing to let you know that I believe you were right in your DRV notification, and this is coming from someone who often disagrees with your AfD assessments. So, I guess it wasn't all in vain. Cheers! Pilaz ( talk) 16:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there Jclemens. Just stopping by after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Water Rats characters to say if you (or anyone else) would ever like the text restored to your userspace to consider merging some content into Water Rats (TV series), just let me know and I'll happily restore it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, as the closer of the discussion. I hope you're staying well during these crazy times. Best, Ajpolino ( talk) 01:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the bot was not archiving undated entries, so I'm clearing them without further comment. Jclemens ( talk) 23:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I had been closely following the Signpost DRV with an eye to possible closing it. I wouldn't really disagree with anything you wrote in your close. However, I think the totality of the close fails to reflect the consensus reached. By my count around 60% of editors endorsed the close, though some did as you note express mixed feelings. However your close is, by my read, entirely focused on the concerns and thoughts of the those who feel something was wrong with the close and little mention is given to those who support it. Now some of this was justified by those who also endorsed it. So again I don't disagree with anything you've written, but it does fail to note the support, on the whole, the closes had and thus I think needs revision to accurately reflect that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Problematic close, but endorsed (no further action needed). As amended you now note the numerical endorsement but again my point was that the thinking of those who endorse it was largely absent from the text (outside of some discussion of Speedy Keep criteria which was more in depth than the DRV had itself about that criteria) and a numerical addition at the end seems to just reinforce the idea that you weighted those people away which is not what I think you did. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you! Extremely thoughtful and thorough close with excellent summaries. Secondly, one clarification regarding this:
this was an improper NAC in that the closer lacked awareness of this foreseeable outcome
Whilst to me it did feel highly cut-and-dried when I was closing it, but I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part. I was very expectant that should it be contentious, the closure would just be reverted and the discussion continued (especially as it was an NAC), or in this case a DRV would take place. However, I didn't expect thermonuclear Wiki-war across several venues with everyone, including myself,
everyone beating the horse beyond death and into a slushy pulp of nothingness with no consensus on anything, holier-than-thou debates, constant abject refusal to listen to each other and work an actual solution, and a total grotesque mess ensuing. Maybe assuming people wouldn't get as riled up as they did was a flop on my part, but a good lesson - bold moves can result in bold messes!
Anyway, thank you again. Best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I knew that using SNOW was risky which is why the close was quite a bold move on my part... which is precisely why it was a bad move. See WP:BADNAC#2: "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."
Churches of Christ has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
![]()
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
The 5-way merger of the Demon Princes novel series occurred as a result of an AfD discussion. We observed that the articles for the individual novels were WP:JUSTPLOT, with the exception of a couple which also had a review or two. I proposed merging them all into the main page and others approved. The main series page now has a short synopsis of each novel, as well as the review information from the pages which had reviews. I believe this constitutes a proper encyclopedic treatment of this series and see no reason why the mergers should have been reverted. As of now, they're back to being WP:JUSTPLOT, which is against policy. I'm willing to discuss this here or on the article's talk page, where I've linked a discussion I had w/ another editor about the same issue. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 05:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You deserve it 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I thought #2 was spot on. Too much "Wikipedia the game", and not enough article improvement.
Only speaking for myself, I will say that I find it difficult anymore to try to have consensual discussions with other editors in regards to article edits. I'm happy to roll up my sleeves and join in a collaborative effort, but I keep encountering situations that go well beyond ownership. There seems to be a deeply rooted institutionally supported intransigence. "If I just listen and talk with someone on a talk page, they'll eventually go away and I'll do what I want later". It's like certain editors have created a formula to use our various policies of collegiate open-ness in order to prevent collaborative building of the encyclopedia. Even if what they are doing is not only contrary to various policies, but flagrantly so. "I want it, and that's all that matters".
I don't like the idea of putting on my admin hat and doing revert, block, ignore. I'd rather give someone a chance and try to explain the policies they are violating, etc., so that they might develop into a better editor. But to say they are disinterested, puts it mildly.
It does, I am sad to say, make it rather easy to be less-then-motivated to prioritize editing on Wikipedia, and just stay mostly in reader mode, when real life allows.
Anyway, I just wanted to express that I liked what you wrote. And didn't think clicking a "like" expressed it well enough : )
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
>>> Extorc. talk 18:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.>>> Extorc. talk 18:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw your comment here. I think you made a fair evaluation of the AFD process and the debate between deletion, inclusion, and all the options in between. Everyone wants an encyclopedia filled with good articles and there can be reasonable disagreements about how to achieve that.
I have also noticed several times where your opinion on a deletion discussion has been outside of the consensus about what is suitable for Wikipedia, and the content is deleted/redirected over your misinterpretations of policy and/or evidence. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] These are only the most recent examples where you have found yourself outside of the norm for how Wikipedia treats content.
My intent isn't to criticize you for being out of step with WP:CONSENSUS. My intent is to draw attention to what we consider to be "reasonable" disagreement. It is completely inevitable that every editor will find themselves outside of the general consensus, especially if they are wading into conflict resolution processes like AFD. Wikipedia isn't a game and we're not trying to keep score, but I think we are both "right" far more often than we are "wrong", and that makes us both basically reasonable. For myself, sometimes there is a consensus to keep a stand alone article despite my AFD nomination. I see article improvement as a win for the entire encyclopedia, and most reasonable editors should see it that way.
Where I think you have crossed the line into unreasonable is when you do the opposite of WP:NPA, and comment on the contributor, instead of focusing on the content. For example, asking an editor "how do you expect to be taken seriously" [12] has no constructive place in the discussion process, and only serves to heighten the dispute into something personal. Similarly, you are going against the advice at WP:NPA when you say an AFD makes me look bad, or call it a failure of my competence. Let alone feeling so strongly as to take the content dispute onto my user page. It actually takes less effort to focus on the content, and abstain from going after editors personally.
While I am here, it is also bad faith use of WP:BUREAUCRACY to demand people shut down processes in order to try to control the outcome. Especially when you are experienced enough to know that it's Wikipedia policy to allow those processes to continue until they reach a WP:CONSENSUS, and that your calls for a shut down carries zero policy weight.
Again, I think there's room for reasonable disagreement here. We have differing opinions about what qualifies for a stand alone article on Wikipedia. I am asking you to focus on the content, and I think that's a reasonable, request based on the most essential Wikipedia conduct policies. If you can't learn to focus on content, I'm going to have to ask you to disengage from content disputes with me altogether. Thanks. Jontesta ( talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
On 2 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lifemark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite the commercial success of previous Kendrick Brothers films, star Kirk Cameron said that Lifemark was unable to secure a distributor due to its pro-life stance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lifemark. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Lifemark), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit removed the characterization of National Review, Baptist Messenger, World (magazine), and National Catholic Register as being Christian and conservative media sources. I was wondering what your objection to those adjectives might be, (the main meaning being that the reviews mentioned are not from the usual movie-industry sources like Variety (magazine), The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood). Also, that first sentence references the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score + the 5 critics' reviews there (Jackie K. Cooper, Michael Medved, The Independent Critic, Aisle Seat, NYC Movie Guru) but doesn't cite their actual reviews, or cite a link to RT, it instead cites the other reviews subsequently mentioned in the sentence. Shearonink ( talk) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill?.
109.111.237.2 (
talk) 14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You should be indefinitely blocked for this transphobic hate speech and I think you know that. I wish you were still an admin so someone could take you to Arbcom and have you stripped of your status. Unfortunately for you, TNT will not be subject to any sanction because Arbcom is aware of the ramifications for it. The best you can do now is apologize in the ANI discussion we will start for your CBAN. Your apology won’t keep you from being banned, but it will at least allow you to save face. No pride for some of us without liberation for all of us ( talk) 00:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure we all have thick skin; I guess we have to. I'm sorry that we cannot do a better job of protecting our editors and administrators. Drmies ( talk) 01:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! Just letting you know that the redirect at Donald X. Vaccarino is up for RFD. I figure you might have some input as the former article is in your userspace at User:Jclemens/Donald X. Vaccarino. BOZ ( talk) 15:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Jontesta, since you have politely requested that I cease using your talk page to educate you in the appropriate use of deletion processes, I must necessarily and regretfully pursue any future perceived failures as user conduct issues. That is, when you've been told your conduct is inappropriate, and told me to stop telling you it is, I have no other option. Mind you, this doesn't involve our disagreements about notability or inclusion--you'll note that I have those sorts of disagreements with other editors all the time that don't involve me suggesting their conduct violates Wikipedia expectations--but rather 1) your repeated use of materially false statements in AfD nominations and 2) the inappropriate PROD nomination of articles where any competent editor should perceive that deletion would be controversial. What you have been asked to do, (for those viewing this who don't want to go digging) is 1) Make accurate statements in AfD nominations: don't say no coverage exists when it clearly does and don't say a BEFORE search found nothing when my BEFORE search clearly finds plenty to consider, and 2) Follow PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.
with a reasonable definition of what expected might include, to include the insight gained from prior deletion discussions that attracted even one contrary opinion. I sincerely hope that the problematic behavior is never repeated and nothing further comes of this.
Jclemens (
talk) 07:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context.(and that is me quoting you), was a materially false statement with respect to Miraz. You never retracted, refactored, amended, or apologized for it--at least not that I've seen. If I've overlooked you doing any one of those things, please show me what I missed and accept my apologies in advance.
There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic.as if it were a factual statement, rather than your personal opinion based on inadequate searching. You further stated
This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject.and I demonstrated that a full 25% of the article, 5 of 19 sources, clearly do not fit that description. Further, by asserting that in the nomination statement, it suggests that you believe that having a number of primary sources in a fictional topic is an argument for deletion, which is not the case either.
Hello, I found you via the Computer Security WikiProject and was hoping you could help me out. I posted a few requests on the talk page for Emsisoft, an anti-malware company, just to fix a few bad sources like press releases, blogs, etc. I have a COI (and declared it there too) - are you able to review them? Talk:Emsisoft#article update proposals Thanks. Sportsfan4646 ( talk) 19:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 9. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
BilledMammal (
talk) 23:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Christians believe that Jesus resurrected Lazarusor
Jesus resurrected Lazarus. This isn't true; sources that say the former, regardless of the beliefs of the author, can be reliable, while I do not believe sources that say the latter can be.
BOZ (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ ( talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jclemens! I noticed that you reverted the redirecting of Sally Carrera with the edit summary "Challenged PROD". I'm a bit confused by this as the article was PRODed 7 days prior to being redirected with no objection. So why did you challenge the passed PROD? ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I've prodded Fairy (Artemis Fowl) and Magic in Artemis Fowl and I may be prodding more from this series if the articles are very poor (otherwise they'll be at AfD). Yes, those two can be redirected to List of concepts in Artemis Fowl, but seriously, they are very poor as a searchable term, and b, the target will end up and AfD shortly anyway, so why bother. Almost all of AF content I am seeing now is terribly fancrufty and unlikely to be redeemed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool, what did you find? BOZ ( talk) 04:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nekivik ( talk) 08:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I've prodded Matador (Marvel Comics), Jazinda and Southpaw (comics). Feel free to redirect or deprod if you think any deserves a hearing at AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
New comic prod: Young Marvelman. Feel free to redirect to the target I suggested unless you think this needs a full AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at your userpage yesterday and I noticed a section with this title. I've brought back quite a few articles from deletion or redirection myself (most of them video game articles, but a lot of other games and a few comics articles and other things) and that reminded me of one of the ideas I have in my pipeline for the future. I'm thinking of what it would take to have a WikiProject called maybe Revive or Restore with the purpose of bringing back articles with fixable issues. We have projects like Women in Red which encourages article creation, and ARS which encourages saving articles from threat of deletion, but as far as I know we don't really have anywhere that focuses on "What if this was a mistake and this article should never have been gotten rid of?" I'm not expecting a high traffic WikiProject, but maybe with a few dedicated volunteers at any given time with access to good sources, and a noticeboard of good potential candidate articles to work on, we can make an impact on fixing past mistakes? BOZ ( talk) 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Heh, I wasn't aware of that essay. When I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see something advising people not to post rants in the wee hours of the morning :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, any TPS who may still be watching, this is why Alternatives to Deletion matter, and why delete-then-redirect is never a good idea after an AfD based on notability:
The only problem with the whole evolution is that there were RS'es from IGN and The AV Club easily present on the first page of Google results the entire time.
Because this was redirected with history intact, it was easy to fix and un-redirect the article: the fundamentally flawed AfD (neither the nom or the two redirect !voters appeared to be aware of the reviews) ultimately did no damage. Had the article been deleted and then redirected, correcting this error would have required an admin and a whole lot more work. As is, this is a "near miss" from which we should all learn.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Please stop posting to my talk page. Thank you. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. AfDs are for things where editing cannot improve a page. I demonstrated that three pages could be improved by editing, therefore your original nominations were not in the best interests of Wikipedia.
Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for, implies that you did a search for RS reviews. Thus, when other editors saw your statement and saw no RS reviews in the article, they agreed that the episodes in question should be redirected or deleted. (As an aside, can I confirm that we both agree that any article on a TV episode with multiple independent, non-trivial, secondary RS reviews for that episode should be kept as an independent article?) I'll note that you didn't suggest redirection in your boilerplate, even though it noted
In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show, indicating you were aware that each episode was part of a larger group (season or show) which would have been an appropriate redirect or merge target.
For Games (seaQuest DSV) and Dream Weaver (seaQuest DSV) before PROD/AfD? Note other episodes from Template:seaQuest DSV have been redirected as they were 100% unreferenced. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I would like to get your opinion on some episodes. There are a lot of episodes that other editors have added the notability tag to that have at least 2 reviews cited. Is that enough for an episode to be kept and have the tag removed? I have seen others argue that it isn't enough and some have redirected them. I know 2 reviews are enough for films to be considered notable, but I cannot find a consensus on TV episodes. Here are a few:
All the Way (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Bring On the Night (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Lizards (Heroes)
Living the Dream (House)
The Line (Heroes)
Him (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Help (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
There are more, but I wanted to give you an idea of what I am seeing. Some of these have been redirected in the past, but that was reverted. But, the notability tag remains as there is still some who question whether 2 reviews are enough. I would like to have it decided if they are notable or not and either have the tags removed or the episodes redirected. I have removed the tags before on episodes that have 2 reviews, and other editors claim that is insufficent and have restored the tag.
Thanks. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Friendly ping, in case you'd miss it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Balthier. 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Nice catch on my edit about James Dobson. In a source, I read a statement about "the APA's list of mental disorders" and I assumed this referred to the DSM. I was was incorrect. No, he was never a member of American Psychiatric Association (as far as I know) only the American Psychological Association. Thank you for your careful attention! Jno.skinner ( talk) 18:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Jclemens. On WT:N, you wrote:
This entire discussion is elitist and more concerned with boundary-drawing to improve some authors' sense of self-importance. This is a recurring problem in Wikipedia, from POKEMON onward. This is not the same as a V or NPOV problem, this is a desire to limit topics to those for whom elite, socially acceptable articles--as in, NOT pop culture--can be written. It's a navel-gazing exercise which ignores our mission and arguably drives our editor retention issues: If you want a volunteer-driven encyclopedia, then you can expect some quality standards, but disallow editors from doing what they like, and they're gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, in that case, I'm an elitist. I think that an utterly insane proportion of our biographies are biographies of sportspeople.
Personally, I'm British. My country isn't really known for its sporting prowess, so much as for unjustly conquering more than half the globe, exploring the world and stealing its resources, for its many wars with France, and for being the birthplace of the industrial revolution with many technological and scientific advances.
But as of right now:
Wikipedia literally has more articles in Category:Footballers from Bristol than we do in Category:British inventors.
My position is that we have a huge, deep, sprawling problem with sports biography proliferation and it desperately needs to be reined in.— S Marshall T/ C 07:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias - People are going to write about what they want to write about.
Should we really be wiping out work that people are willing to do - or creating ultra-stringent rules for inclusion of - because we want more of something else?
We've gone from an encyclopedia which includes the world's knowledge to seemingly only as much knowledge as certain factions will allow.
That said, is there something we can do about it?
As we build up more and more policy tracts limiting inclusion, (and I say this as someone who has contributed to, and experienced, a LOT of policy discussion over the years) I wonder where Wikipedia will be once the low-hanging fruit is removed. And the better question - Will that still be a Wikipedia that has the large usage it does now, or will the world move on, like they have so many other internet platforms.
I don't know.
But I am seriously concerned about Wikipedia's future.
I think we very well could be one Google fork away from becoming irrelevant. And that concerns me. Once the "wiki-way" is gone, I don't think it'll ever be back... - jc37 14:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)