This 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. |
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you SmokeyJoe Arangel1970 ( talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Although we disagree on Draft:Pulse Fitness, I absolutely agree with your point re. "(2) rejected for improvement, or (3) rejected outright" at the Village Pump. I almost think we need a fourth button, along with Accept, Comment, Decline, that is something like "Never in a million years", or "Begone, and never darken our doors again". Obviously, we'd need to tone the language down. KJP1 ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 06:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reviewing the page. I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on the notability issue. Personally, I find it unjustified and unfair, which is why I am soliciting your opinion. There's a discussion on the talk page. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
... means just that.
Same with "No further edits should be made to this section."
So I have reverted this edit [1] by you to a closed CfD.
If you object to a close, post on the closer's talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
If you had time, I'd appreciate a view on the above. Although it looks like it has inline cites, it actually doesn't and would appear to be completely unsourced. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 19:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow... I don't know what to say. I've never had a plan named after me! <Wipes away a solitary tear>
Seriously, though, that gave me a small chuckle (even if it may not have been your intention), so really, thanks! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You're not British? Current is way beyond terrible. We never use middle names like that in the UK, for anyone. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdrew the nom and thinking of going with a modified version of what you suggested, using a table. What do you think?
Draft:
Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have created Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 [2]). Please have a look. Warm Regards Shibanihk ( talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft. VQuakr ( talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just type "reply" and it will suffice. GMG talk 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I, for one, consider referring to a fellow editor's "delusions" as a personal attack.
Please revert.
Thanks -- В²C ☎ 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe. I expect a withdrawal and an apology on AWNB for your bad faith comment about my "sneakiness" here. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
amounts to a statement if intend to quietly move Australian place names contrary to the understanding the these pages will not be moved. The wording of NCAUST represents an acceptable compromise for what is usually done, but the consensus behind it was very shaky, very contest. You are undoubtedly well aware of the contentiousness of these page moves, being one of the most vocal proponents for minimising the titles of Australian towns. By doing the page moves, as seen in your move log, undisclosed, on quiet pages, no user of WP:RM/TR let alone WP:RM, in full awareness of the contentiousness of these page moves, you are, in my considered opinion acting "sneaky". I stand by that word, by the measured strength of that word, and further accuse you of feigning offence.Personally, I would prefer us to get on with removing all the superfluous disambiguation terms from all Australian locality titles. This would however have the potential to create some (short to medium term) disruption so the best approach in my mind is the incremental one - rename articles to their succinct and precise title as and when required. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I was told to take this here, and it may now go to Articles for Creation, because it seems that you don't think that Submitted sandboxes should be treated in the same way as drafts. I don't like lengthy discussions on user talk pages, at least not about policy, because I think that discussions that involve policy should be in more public places.
Continuing a discussion here that was in a deletion discussion (which will therefore be archived within a week). User:SmokeyJoe wrote: "I agree. Idoh shouldn't feel dumped upon because I think non-drafts should not be moved to draftspace." No, no, no, no, no. SmokeyJoe was dumping on a reviewer, User:I dream of horses. The reviewers get tired of having difficult criteria set and getting dumped on for not having superpowers. I don't entirely know what SmokeyJoe means when they say that non-drafts should not be moved to draft space. Does that mean that sandboxes that have been submitted to AFC should not be moved to draft space for review, or that there should be some objective criterion as to what is and is not a draft? At present, if a sandbox has been Submitted for AFC review, the tool encourages the reviewer to move it to draft space. In fact, I completely agree that a sandbox that has been Submitted should be moved to draft space if possible, for various reasons. The tools provide various useful features, but only if the draft has a title in draft space. The tool shows whether the title already exists in article space, and whether the title has previously been deleted in article space. These are very useful information. If the article already exists, it is very useful for the reviewer to see that it exists, and to compare it to the draft, and determine whether the draft is an improvement (urge the editor to improve the article boldly), or the article is better (the more common situation, just decline the draft). If the article has been deleted, it is very useful for the reviewer to see why, and whether this draft is worth reviewing in detail, or may be no better than the previous A7, or may even need G4. None of these useful features are available until the article is moved into draft space. If User:SmokeyJoe is saying that reviewers should not move Submitted sandboxes into draft space, then maybe they don't understand, or maybe they should explain why Submitted sandboxes should not be moved into draft space.
There is even an advantage to moving hopeless drafts into draft space before declining them or before tagging them for CSD. That is that sometimes the titles need salting. It really does help to move Submitted sandboxes into draft space and treat them as drafts once they are Submitted.
I'm sorry, but it does appear that User:SmokeyJoe is dumping on the reviewers by saying that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, or is saying something, such as that the reviewers should use some sort of superpower to treat Submitted sandboxes differently than other drafts. Please explain in more detail why you are not dumping on the reviewers, and what you think the reviewers should and should not do with stupid stuff and with smart stuff.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
, with the AfC template {{AFC submission|||ts=20171004083856|u=Karthik sivagami|ns=2}}Everyday I would like to start off with a quote that is why I waken up today,whats the difference today will make in my life.
Wikipedia has a complex culture consisting of many subgroups of volunteers, and most of the volunteers usually interact primarily with other volunteers in their own groups, and only occasionally with other groups. One of the less attractive but more persistent elements of this complex culture is dumping, in particular dumping on volunteers in other subgroups or on whatever technical systems they have (and it is made more complicated by the fact that the technical stuff is partly done by volunteers, over whom we have little control, and partly by WMF staff, over whom we have no control, who are like zombies without a zombiemaster). Some of us volunteers at AFC are now interacting more than before with the volunteers who handle MFD. It is easy, and very much the Wikipedia way, for the MFD volunteers to dump on the AFC volunteers, saying that we shouldn't have moved stupid drafts to draft space, or shouldn't have tagged the stupid drafts for deletion, just let them die G13, or that we should have been more welcoming to the new editors who create the stupid drafts. (One of the most common forms of dumping is saying that the AFC volunteers or NPP volunteers or any other group of volunteers are not being sufficiently welcoming to the new editors, whom we all know all want to improve the encyclopedia, but, because they aren't helped, they are stupid.) In this case, SmokeyJoe did second-guess the AFC volunteers, and maybe thought that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, the move to draft space, although it is very useful in many cases. An apology is due, but of course there won't be one, because it isn't the Wikipedia way to apologize for dumping on other volunteers. If you don't know the roles, let alone the names, it isn't a personal attack, just the Wikipedia way. By the way, I do apologize if I have been dumping on the MFD volunteers. I don't mean to, but it is the Wikipedia way.
I don't apologize for dumping about disruption due to cleaning up of math drafts. That cleanup has been disruptive, and the dust makes us sneeze.
Yes, User:SmokeyJoe, you were dumping on the AFC volunteers. It is the Wikipedia way, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Yes, the tools need improvement. In particular, the standard wording of the decline template should not say that the editor is encouraged to improve the draft and resubmit, unless the reviewer requests that that wording be used. (However, the wording is there because we have to be deferential toward the new editors.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting that section from NPL. I wondered why I couldn't find it, and then I saw that you deleted it with an edit summary saying that it was perpetual motion.
The same author put that in the NPL article as wrote the draft that is being discussed. I think that we should assume good faith, which is to assume that the author believes it, and doesn't see the bunk. I am thinking that the whole venture is a con game, intended to get investors who don't realize that it is scientifically invalid to invest.
By the way, on further analysis, it is worse than I had originally realized. The source of the energy is the zinc, which reacts with water. But the zinc metal has to be smelted from an ore, typically zinc sulfide, which requires energy. Also, the sulfur in the zinc sulfide is another environmental concern. In the past it was simply burned off, but that results in acid rain. It is now scrubbed, but that also uses energy.
There's no free lunch. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you say that you had made a specific proposal about AFC? I can't find it now, and would like to review it and probably agree. Where is it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The StandardHK is a very credible source as the leading English newspaper in HongKong. Sing Pao is one of the top two Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong. There are two references from STandardHK and one from Sing Pao that comment directly about the subject and they are referenced in the article. MaddBuzzHK and wenweipao sources are also reliable sources in English and Chinese respectively. John99Wick (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC) John99Wick ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You asked me why I "equivocated" on G11 about a particular autobiography. The answer is that I don't interpret completely non-notable completely worthless autobiographies as being promotional unless they consist largely of promotional language. I take the same reading on worthless corporate stubs. I will re-read the G11 criteria as per your question, but I don't view autobiographies as advertising unless there is some business claim. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
2-level Score" is Approval voting.
Yes, but this is "2-level score with abstentions", which are never part of approval voting that I'm aware of. Abstentions are sometimes part of Score, though: http://scorevoting.net/Blanks.html
Borda is the most well known score voting.
Borda is not score voting; it's an ordinal system where you must give a unique ranking to each candidate. Score voting is a cardinal system where you give independent ratings to each candidate. — Omegatron ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I partly agree with what you say. I agree with your criticism of the standard decline template that encourages them to improve the draft, which reflects the standard party-line Wikipedia philosophy that the encyclopedia will always continue expanding without limit as long as we remember to be sufficiently fulsomely flattering to new editors and encourage them to create new articles. It isn't the fault of a good-faith new editor that they submit seven times. However, it is the fault of a new editor that they don't answer my question as to conflict of interest (after being eager to submit repeatedly, they go silent on being asked whether they have a conflict of interest). I wasn't tagging it for notability issues, but for COI issues. (Also, although notability is not a reason to tag for MFD, I do consider it valid to tag a draft for MFD if the author seems unable to respond intelligently to a question about notability. That isn't the issue with Fitchuk, but sometimes it is the issue.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've created a new tool (in the form of a user script).
It's called SearchSuite. — The Transhumanist 23:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
On your userpage, I noticed you wrote "To reduce the bitiness of deletion, all deletions of pages created in good faith should be logged with a link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets". I second the idea. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 04:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Check out User:Legacypac/A7 I'd love your collaberation. Legacypac ( talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
See Template:NSFW if we can come to agreement I'd love to jointly propose this be implemented within AfC. Legacypac ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, fyi [3]. Best -- Tom ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It is true that the nominator named the wrong AFD. I noted the correct AFD. The history of the draft showed that the author of the draft was blocked, primarily for disrupting the AFD, but was able to create the draft before being blocked. The subsequent resubmissions were by IPs, almost certainly the author. So this was not a case of the stupid template encouraging persistent resubmission. This was a case of disruption and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Also by the way, that draft went G4, so MFD wasn't necessary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You suggested in one of the MFD discussions, Draft:Akhilendra Sahu, that reviewers should remove the stupid template. Please explain. I thought that might be useful advice, but I see that all that I can remove is the entire AFC decline notice. I can't remove some of the words. The AFC process relies on the use of the templates. There isn't a way that I can see for a reviewer to change what is displayed. Maybe you would prefer that the reviewers bypass the process entirely and just put comments in the draft talk page or something. That would be an alternative, but it isn't fair to scold the reviewers because we haven't done what we can't do. I know that you don't like the saccharine wording of the decline message. Neither do I. However, I think that, by !voting to Keep crud because of the wording is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. !Voting to Keep crud because of a belief that it can be improved is a case where reasonable editors can disagree. However, continuing to dump on the reviewers because of the wording of the template that we have to use is just troublesome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing an AfC tag on a userspace page removes it from G13 so not a good idea. Sandboxes are some of the worst submissions for whatever reason. Legacypac ( talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JarrahTree 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Portal:Portal is linked from the new {{ WikiProject Portal}} (via some complex template chicanery). I agree that its old target was inappropriate but it should probably be a redirect to somewhere. Any suggestions? Certes ( talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
If you think that was good, you've got to take a look at what follows your quote. — The Transhumanist 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: (in the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Creating a template called Transclude lead excerpt).
I appreciate your comments and leadership on G13. Pretty much the same arguments for expanding G13 to all Drafts apply to all Userspace drafts. There are a couple ways it could go. Either bring Mohammad to the mountain or bring the mountain to Mohamed. When I work on stale userspace I CSD anything that can be CSD'd, blank sandboxes, mainspace the odd page that makes a good topic, and for the maybe good but compeletely abandoned - move it to Draft space where someone might pick it up (if you start a new page and a draft exists at that title it tells you for example). Some of the now Draft pages will get swept away G13 but at least they had a chance of being used.
Another challenge is that many userspace drafts are tagged as such and therefore are pretty hard to find. A large scale clean up of userspace would be worthwile, though there will be detractors that like Userspace as a free for all no rules area and others that see clearing userspace as a waste of time. Legacypac ( talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't like "leave it alone" from a practical point of view. It makes sense when you think about one draft on its own but we have an ever changing group of editors looking through an ever expanding pile of pages. Broadly we have "valuable" (mainspace usable in some form) "useless" (not CSDable but unlikely to be used in mainspace) and "bad" (attack/copyvio/promo etc). As we pull out the valuable and bad pages the pile of useless grows and grows both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total pages. It gets harder and harder to find valuable and bad pages in the pile plus multiple editors end up reviewing the same useless abandoned pages again and again for years which is a soul crushing time sink. New pages are being added all the time that need review so you can't just say oh we got the bad down to x% and that's good enough. Like AfC and NPP there has to be an exit or bin for the useless.
Category:Userspace drafts is populated by an inserted template. You and I and many editors have userspace pages that lack that template. The userspace draft universe is much bigger that the category.
Yes I agree that MfD should be for special cases that can't be CSD'd, the CSD was declined or where blanking leaves an undesirable title. Legacypac ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You are no longer such a person.
I have many userspace pages, and really do not want anyone else fiddling with them. I consider them to be my notes on my desk, even though anyone can read them and check them for policy compliance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what wikipedia policy states should (if anything) be done about pages like User:Nripen P Sudheer (i.e. pages where minors seemingly reveal information about themselves). I've read Wikipedia:Child protection but could not find anything applicable to this situation offhand. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See User talk:Godsy#Please fix your signature. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch (2nd nomination) still says "redirect". — The Transhumanist 21:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
@
Calliopejen1:] I'm very keen on this idea -- is there somewhere we can start discussions without being accused of breaking the encyclopedia?
Espresso Addict (
talk)
23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about triaging vs. just working on abandoned material. I agree that the entire AFC environment is toxic, and that it is problematic that new contributors end up routed to what often are some of the WP:BITEiest editors on all of WP. I'm not sure I can commit to assisting. I don't often work with drafts because I find the environment to be depressing and stress-inducing. (Like yesterday, when I moved a half dozen articles to mainspace that weren't great, but weren't terrible either, and apparently caused the world to end. Ugh.) (pinging @ Legacypac: and @ Espresso Addict:) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I am pleased to see you !voting Delete on promotional crud again, rather than !voting Keep just to protest the wording of the AFC decline template. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, I think your notvote would probably fit better under the opening post, rather than under Alternative C. Though its not a very well organized discussion so maybe its where you want it, in which case you may wish to add a bit to elaborate on the subtle difference between A and C. Or not, no problem. Thanks for taking another look NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Realised that I posted this at the top when I should have put it in the bottom. So moved it.
Hello, I need advise, as a newbie. I have found some references pertaining to this specific page and not sure if it makes sense to add them since it's still in Draft. Not sure how it can get out of that status, either. I can add material from these articles or just the references. Your advice would be appreciated.
This artificial itelligence can predict your mood - MarketWatch WSJ May 24, 2018
Behavioral Signal Processing: Enabling human-centered behavioral informatics - USC
Signal Processing and Machine Learning for Mental Health Research and Clinical Applications
Behavioral signals: What is that? - Alexandros Potamianos on Medium
Thank you, Talos22 ( talk) 12:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The RFC was explicitly about modify/weakening WP:NMFD with the wording inserted. [4] If you want to overturn that RfC you need to start another one. I'd suggest a reversal of your revert here. Legacypac ( talk) 22:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Read the two paragraphs that start the RFC here [5] as I linked above. The part right below the close by User:Primefac. The RFC had heavy participation. Legacypac ( talk) 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC) User:TonyBallioni may want to discuss this with you if you can't see how you are edit warring against the RFC result. Legacypac ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SmokeyJoe and NMFD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wikipedia:Drafts. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
There was an RfC. You are at 3RR. Stop edit warring against community-wide consensus.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
01:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked whether corporate notability guidelines apply to this non-profit. The answer is that corporate notability guidelines and organizational notability guidelines are two names for the same guideline. There is no difference in notability guidelines between a profit and a non-profit organization. There are only the specific exceptions that you quoted. Perhaps that answers your question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, apologies, that removal at the Mfd was a major cock up on my part. When I checked my notifications in my email account of mentions I went to the linked edit and added a comment but didn't realise I was editing an old version of the page so accidentally wiped out the later edits. Have restored them and hopefully fixed it, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 10:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This 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. |
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you SmokeyJoe Arangel1970 ( talk) 13:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Although we disagree on Draft:Pulse Fitness, I absolutely agree with your point re. "(2) rejected for improvement, or (3) rejected outright" at the Village Pump. I almost think we need a fourth button, along with Accept, Comment, Decline, that is something like "Never in a million years", or "Begone, and never darken our doors again". Obviously, we'd need to tone the language down. KJP1 ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 06:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for reviewing the page. I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in on the notability issue. Personally, I find it unjustified and unfair, which is why I am soliciting your opinion. There's a discussion on the talk page. -- SVTCobra ( talk) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
... means just that.
Same with "No further edits should be made to this section."
So I have reverted this edit [1] by you to a closed CfD.
If you object to a close, post on the closer's talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
If you had time, I'd appreciate a view on the above. Although it looks like it has inline cites, it actually doesn't and would appear to be completely unsourced. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 19:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow... I don't know what to say. I've never had a plan named after me! <Wipes away a solitary tear>
Seriously, though, that gave me a small chuckle (even if it may not have been your intention), so really, thanks! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You're not British? Current is way beyond terrible. We never use middle names like that in the UK, for anyone. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I withdrew the nom and thinking of going with a modified version of what you suggested, using a table. What do you think?
Draft:
Thanks! -- В²C ☎ 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have created Rahul Verma (social activist) after Allow creation decision in deletion review/Log/2018 February 9 [2]). Please have a look. Warm Regards Shibanihk ( talk) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template:Promising draft. VQuakr ( talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Just type "reply" and it will suffice. GMG talk 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I, for one, consider referring to a fellow editor's "delusions" as a personal attack.
Please revert.
Thanks -- В²C ☎ 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe. I expect a withdrawal and an apology on AWNB for your bad faith comment about my "sneakiness" here. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
amounts to a statement if intend to quietly move Australian place names contrary to the understanding the these pages will not be moved. The wording of NCAUST represents an acceptable compromise for what is usually done, but the consensus behind it was very shaky, very contest. You are undoubtedly well aware of the contentiousness of these page moves, being one of the most vocal proponents for minimising the titles of Australian towns. By doing the page moves, as seen in your move log, undisclosed, on quiet pages, no user of WP:RM/TR let alone WP:RM, in full awareness of the contentiousness of these page moves, you are, in my considered opinion acting "sneaky". I stand by that word, by the measured strength of that word, and further accuse you of feigning offence.Personally, I would prefer us to get on with removing all the superfluous disambiguation terms from all Australian locality titles. This would however have the potential to create some (short to medium term) disruption so the best approach in my mind is the incremental one - rename articles to their succinct and precise title as and when required. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I was told to take this here, and it may now go to Articles for Creation, because it seems that you don't think that Submitted sandboxes should be treated in the same way as drafts. I don't like lengthy discussions on user talk pages, at least not about policy, because I think that discussions that involve policy should be in more public places.
Continuing a discussion here that was in a deletion discussion (which will therefore be archived within a week). User:SmokeyJoe wrote: "I agree. Idoh shouldn't feel dumped upon because I think non-drafts should not be moved to draftspace." No, no, no, no, no. SmokeyJoe was dumping on a reviewer, User:I dream of horses. The reviewers get tired of having difficult criteria set and getting dumped on for not having superpowers. I don't entirely know what SmokeyJoe means when they say that non-drafts should not be moved to draft space. Does that mean that sandboxes that have been submitted to AFC should not be moved to draft space for review, or that there should be some objective criterion as to what is and is not a draft? At present, if a sandbox has been Submitted for AFC review, the tool encourages the reviewer to move it to draft space. In fact, I completely agree that a sandbox that has been Submitted should be moved to draft space if possible, for various reasons. The tools provide various useful features, but only if the draft has a title in draft space. The tool shows whether the title already exists in article space, and whether the title has previously been deleted in article space. These are very useful information. If the article already exists, it is very useful for the reviewer to see that it exists, and to compare it to the draft, and determine whether the draft is an improvement (urge the editor to improve the article boldly), or the article is better (the more common situation, just decline the draft). If the article has been deleted, it is very useful for the reviewer to see why, and whether this draft is worth reviewing in detail, or may be no better than the previous A7, or may even need G4. None of these useful features are available until the article is moved into draft space. If User:SmokeyJoe is saying that reviewers should not move Submitted sandboxes into draft space, then maybe they don't understand, or maybe they should explain why Submitted sandboxes should not be moved into draft space.
There is even an advantage to moving hopeless drafts into draft space before declining them or before tagging them for CSD. That is that sometimes the titles need salting. It really does help to move Submitted sandboxes into draft space and treat them as drafts once they are Submitted.
I'm sorry, but it does appear that User:SmokeyJoe is dumping on the reviewers by saying that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, or is saying something, such as that the reviewers should use some sort of superpower to treat Submitted sandboxes differently than other drafts. Please explain in more detail why you are not dumping on the reviewers, and what you think the reviewers should and should not do with stupid stuff and with smart stuff.
Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
, with the AfC template {{AFC submission|||ts=20171004083856|u=Karthik sivagami|ns=2}}Everyday I would like to start off with a quote that is why I waken up today,whats the difference today will make in my life.
Wikipedia has a complex culture consisting of many subgroups of volunteers, and most of the volunteers usually interact primarily with other volunteers in their own groups, and only occasionally with other groups. One of the less attractive but more persistent elements of this complex culture is dumping, in particular dumping on volunteers in other subgroups or on whatever technical systems they have (and it is made more complicated by the fact that the technical stuff is partly done by volunteers, over whom we have little control, and partly by WMF staff, over whom we have no control, who are like zombies without a zombiemaster). Some of us volunteers at AFC are now interacting more than before with the volunteers who handle MFD. It is easy, and very much the Wikipedia way, for the MFD volunteers to dump on the AFC volunteers, saying that we shouldn't have moved stupid drafts to draft space, or shouldn't have tagged the stupid drafts for deletion, just let them die G13, or that we should have been more welcoming to the new editors who create the stupid drafts. (One of the most common forms of dumping is saying that the AFC volunteers or NPP volunteers or any other group of volunteers are not being sufficiently welcoming to the new editors, whom we all know all want to improve the encyclopedia, but, because they aren't helped, they are stupid.) In this case, SmokeyJoe did second-guess the AFC volunteers, and maybe thought that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, the move to draft space, although it is very useful in many cases. An apology is due, but of course there won't be one, because it isn't the Wikipedia way to apologize for dumping on other volunteers. If you don't know the roles, let alone the names, it isn't a personal attack, just the Wikipedia way. By the way, I do apologize if I have been dumping on the MFD volunteers. I don't mean to, but it is the Wikipedia way.
I don't apologize for dumping about disruption due to cleaning up of math drafts. That cleanup has been disruptive, and the dust makes us sneeze.
Yes, User:SmokeyJoe, you were dumping on the AFC volunteers. It is the Wikipedia way, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Yes, the tools need improvement. In particular, the standard wording of the decline template should not say that the editor is encouraged to improve the draft and resubmit, unless the reviewer requests that that wording be used. (However, the wording is there because we have to be deferential toward the new editors.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting that section from NPL. I wondered why I couldn't find it, and then I saw that you deleted it with an edit summary saying that it was perpetual motion.
The same author put that in the NPL article as wrote the draft that is being discussed. I think that we should assume good faith, which is to assume that the author believes it, and doesn't see the bunk. I am thinking that the whole venture is a con game, intended to get investors who don't realize that it is scientifically invalid to invest.
By the way, on further analysis, it is worse than I had originally realized. The source of the energy is the zinc, which reacts with water. But the zinc metal has to be smelted from an ore, typically zinc sulfide, which requires energy. Also, the sulfur in the zinc sulfide is another environmental concern. In the past it was simply burned off, but that results in acid rain. It is now scrubbed, but that also uses energy.
There's no free lunch. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you say that you had made a specific proposal about AFC? I can't find it now, and would like to review it and probably agree. Where is it? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The StandardHK is a very credible source as the leading English newspaper in HongKong. Sing Pao is one of the top two Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong. There are two references from STandardHK and one from Sing Pao that comment directly about the subject and they are referenced in the article. MaddBuzzHK and wenweipao sources are also reliable sources in English and Chinese respectively. John99Wick (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC) John99Wick ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You asked me why I "equivocated" on G11 about a particular autobiography. The answer is that I don't interpret completely non-notable completely worthless autobiographies as being promotional unless they consist largely of promotional language. I take the same reading on worthless corporate stubs. I will re-read the G11 criteria as per your question, but I don't view autobiographies as advertising unless there is some business claim. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
2-level Score" is Approval voting.
Yes, but this is "2-level score with abstentions", which are never part of approval voting that I'm aware of. Abstentions are sometimes part of Score, though: http://scorevoting.net/Blanks.html
Borda is the most well known score voting.
Borda is not score voting; it's an ordinal system where you must give a unique ranking to each candidate. Score voting is a cardinal system where you give independent ratings to each candidate. — Omegatron ( talk) 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I partly agree with what you say. I agree with your criticism of the standard decline template that encourages them to improve the draft, which reflects the standard party-line Wikipedia philosophy that the encyclopedia will always continue expanding without limit as long as we remember to be sufficiently fulsomely flattering to new editors and encourage them to create new articles. It isn't the fault of a good-faith new editor that they submit seven times. However, it is the fault of a new editor that they don't answer my question as to conflict of interest (after being eager to submit repeatedly, they go silent on being asked whether they have a conflict of interest). I wasn't tagging it for notability issues, but for COI issues. (Also, although notability is not a reason to tag for MFD, I do consider it valid to tag a draft for MFD if the author seems unable to respond intelligently to a question about notability. That isn't the issue with Fitchuk, but sometimes it is the issue.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've created a new tool (in the form of a user script).
It's called SearchSuite. — The Transhumanist 23:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
On your userpage, I noticed you wrote "To reduce the bitiness of deletion, all deletions of pages created in good faith should be logged with a link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets". I second the idea. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 04:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Check out User:Legacypac/A7 I'd love your collaberation. Legacypac ( talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
See Template:NSFW if we can come to agreement I'd love to jointly propose this be implemented within AfC. Legacypac ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kudpung#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill Cobbs. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, fyi [3]. Best -- Tom ( talk) 18:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It is true that the nominator named the wrong AFD. I noted the correct AFD. The history of the draft showed that the author of the draft was blocked, primarily for disrupting the AFD, but was able to create the draft before being blocked. The subsequent resubmissions were by IPs, almost certainly the author. So this was not a case of the stupid template encouraging persistent resubmission. This was a case of disruption and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Also by the way, that draft went G4, so MFD wasn't necessary. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You suggested in one of the MFD discussions, Draft:Akhilendra Sahu, that reviewers should remove the stupid template. Please explain. I thought that might be useful advice, but I see that all that I can remove is the entire AFC decline notice. I can't remove some of the words. The AFC process relies on the use of the templates. There isn't a way that I can see for a reviewer to change what is displayed. Maybe you would prefer that the reviewers bypass the process entirely and just put comments in the draft talk page or something. That would be an alternative, but it isn't fair to scold the reviewers because we haven't done what we can't do. I know that you don't like the saccharine wording of the decline message. Neither do I. However, I think that, by !voting to Keep crud because of the wording is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. !Voting to Keep crud because of a belief that it can be improved is a case where reasonable editors can disagree. However, continuing to dump on the reviewers because of the wording of the template that we have to use is just troublesome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing an AfC tag on a userspace page removes it from G13 so not a good idea. Sandboxes are some of the worst submissions for whatever reason. Legacypac ( talk) 19:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedians without a sense of humor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JarrahTree 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Portal:Portal is linked from the new {{ WikiProject Portal}} (via some complex template chicanery). I agree that its old target was inappropriate but it should probably be a redirect to somewhere. Any suggestions? Certes ( talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
If you think that was good, you've got to take a look at what follows your quote. — The Transhumanist 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: (in the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Creating a template called Transclude lead excerpt).
I appreciate your comments and leadership on G13. Pretty much the same arguments for expanding G13 to all Drafts apply to all Userspace drafts. There are a couple ways it could go. Either bring Mohammad to the mountain or bring the mountain to Mohamed. When I work on stale userspace I CSD anything that can be CSD'd, blank sandboxes, mainspace the odd page that makes a good topic, and for the maybe good but compeletely abandoned - move it to Draft space where someone might pick it up (if you start a new page and a draft exists at that title it tells you for example). Some of the now Draft pages will get swept away G13 but at least they had a chance of being used.
Another challenge is that many userspace drafts are tagged as such and therefore are pretty hard to find. A large scale clean up of userspace would be worthwile, though there will be detractors that like Userspace as a free for all no rules area and others that see clearing userspace as a waste of time. Legacypac ( talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't like "leave it alone" from a practical point of view. It makes sense when you think about one draft on its own but we have an ever changing group of editors looking through an ever expanding pile of pages. Broadly we have "valuable" (mainspace usable in some form) "useless" (not CSDable but unlikely to be used in mainspace) and "bad" (attack/copyvio/promo etc). As we pull out the valuable and bad pages the pile of useless grows and grows both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total pages. It gets harder and harder to find valuable and bad pages in the pile plus multiple editors end up reviewing the same useless abandoned pages again and again for years which is a soul crushing time sink. New pages are being added all the time that need review so you can't just say oh we got the bad down to x% and that's good enough. Like AfC and NPP there has to be an exit or bin for the useless.
Category:Userspace drafts is populated by an inserted template. You and I and many editors have userspace pages that lack that template. The userspace draft universe is much bigger that the category.
Yes I agree that MfD should be for special cases that can't be CSD'd, the CSD was declined or where blanking leaves an undesirable title. Legacypac ( talk) 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You are no longer such a person.
I have many userspace pages, and really do not want anyone else fiddling with them. I consider them to be my notes on my desk, even though anyone can read them and check them for policy compliance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you know what wikipedia policy states should (if anything) be done about pages like User:Nripen P Sudheer (i.e. pages where minors seemingly reveal information about themselves). I've read Wikipedia:Child protection but could not find anything applicable to this situation offhand. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See User talk:Godsy#Please fix your signature. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch (2nd nomination) still says "redirect". — The Transhumanist 21:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
@
Calliopejen1:] I'm very keen on this idea -- is there somewhere we can start discussions without being accused of breaking the encyclopedia?
Espresso Addict (
talk)
23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about triaging vs. just working on abandoned material. I agree that the entire AFC environment is toxic, and that it is problematic that new contributors end up routed to what often are some of the WP:BITEiest editors on all of WP. I'm not sure I can commit to assisting. I don't often work with drafts because I find the environment to be depressing and stress-inducing. (Like yesterday, when I moved a half dozen articles to mainspace that weren't great, but weren't terrible either, and apparently caused the world to end. Ugh.) (pinging @ Legacypac: and @ Espresso Addict:) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I am pleased to see you !voting Delete on promotional crud again, rather than !voting Keep just to protest the wording of the AFC decline template. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, I think your notvote would probably fit better under the opening post, rather than under Alternative C. Though its not a very well organized discussion so maybe its where you want it, in which case you may wish to add a bit to elaborate on the subtle difference between A and C. Or not, no problem. Thanks for taking another look NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Realised that I posted this at the top when I should have put it in the bottom. So moved it.
Hello, I need advise, as a newbie. I have found some references pertaining to this specific page and not sure if it makes sense to add them since it's still in Draft. Not sure how it can get out of that status, either. I can add material from these articles or just the references. Your advice would be appreciated.
This artificial itelligence can predict your mood - MarketWatch WSJ May 24, 2018
Behavioral Signal Processing: Enabling human-centered behavioral informatics - USC
Signal Processing and Machine Learning for Mental Health Research and Clinical Applications
Behavioral signals: What is that? - Alexandros Potamianos on Medium
Thank you, Talos22 ( talk) 12:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The RFC was explicitly about modify/weakening WP:NMFD with the wording inserted. [4] If you want to overturn that RfC you need to start another one. I'd suggest a reversal of your revert here. Legacypac ( talk) 22:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Read the two paragraphs that start the RFC here [5] as I linked above. The part right below the close by User:Primefac. The RFC had heavy participation. Legacypac ( talk) 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC) User:TonyBallioni may want to discuss this with you if you can't see how you are edit warring against the RFC result. Legacypac ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SmokeyJoe and NMFD. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wikipedia:Drafts. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
There was an RfC. You are at 3RR. Stop edit warring against community-wide consensus.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
01:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You asked whether corporate notability guidelines apply to this non-profit. The answer is that corporate notability guidelines and organizational notability guidelines are two names for the same guideline. There is no difference in notability guidelines between a profit and a non-profit organization. There are only the specific exceptions that you quoted. Perhaps that answers your question. Robert McClenon ( talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello SmokeyJoe, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, apologies, that removal at the Mfd was a major cock up on my part. When I checked my notifications in my email account of mentions I went to the linked edit and added a comment but didn't realise I was editing an old version of the page so accidentally wiped out the later edits. Have restored them and hopefully fixed it, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 10:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)