Archives

no archives yet ( create)

Just wanted you to know that I have been thinking about the AFD process.

I think there is a tendency for participants to list links; without actually reading the articles for content.

The rules and guidelines may be talked about, cited correctly, mostly they are incorrectly cited or applied, or used to press a point. In response to what I have encountered; I have given quite a bit of thought and study to "the rules" and have outlined some perceptions here;

/info/en/?search=User_talk:Flibbertigibbets

My perceptions might be quite foreign to what other people expect; but they are grounded in existing guidelines and core principals. I would be interested in your thoughts and impressions. Flibbertigibbets ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Damansara Shopping Mall (2nd nomination). Thank you.. I'm notifying you as an editor has raised the possibility with a self admitted no evidence of an undisclosed COI but did not notify you. Nil Einne ( talk) 02:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you removed a citation from the Grawlix article with the edit summary of "the dictonary isint a reliable source". Do you mean that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is not a reliable source? I could not find any relevant discussions so it would helpful if you provided a link/explanation. Roost ^T _C( ping me!) 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

@ User:Roost please look at Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources, usually dictionaries aren't reliable sources and cant be used as a source in Wikipedia. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 01:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I read Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources just now. I don't think that applies because it is an article. I did not cite a dictionary entry. Roost ^T _C( ping me!) 01:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

It still is from a dictonary webiste, @ User:Roost `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 05:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The essay doesn't say dictionaries are just unreliable. It is just that dictionaries should be used with care. In this case, I am not citing a definition or etymology so the essay does not apply here. Roost ^T _C( ping me!) 06:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

The essay is not a reliable source. It has no sources on the Merriam Webster page to prove its notability. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Merriam Webster is a respected dictionary. News site like slate.com does not cite sources either but still is considered reliable. And the MerriamWebster citation is supporting a basic and uncontroversial claim so there is more of a leeway in terms of reliability. Roost ^T _C( ping me!) 09:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

It would be better if you gotten the info from other website, but anyway you have a point. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC) reply

A dictionary is a primary source. It is completely reliable. Primary/secondary and reliable/unreliable are seperate concepts. 66.232.69.166 ( talk) 07:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
84		Vancouver School Board ( talk)	Add sources
58		Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional ( talk)	Add sources
50		Princess Masako Takeda ( talk)	Add sources
5		Katimavik-Hazeldean ( talk)	Add sources
10		St. Matthew High School (Ottawa) ( talk)	Add sources
2		Mount Salisbury (Antarctica) ( talk)	Add sources
486		Xinjiang conflict ( talk)	Cleanup
31		Interstate 80 in Ohio ( talk)	Cleanup
139		Anne Jeffreys ( talk)	Cleanup
749		Assisted suicide in the United States ( talk)	Expand
1,067		Burlington, Vermont ( talk)	Expand
3		Nemaha Valley Schools (Nebraska) ( talk)	Expand
3		Mary Matha Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
397		SCP – Containment Breach ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
148		California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
413		Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ( talk)	Merge
1,135		Protest and dissent in China ( talk)	Merge
7		Sumas Mountain (British Columbia) ( talk)	Merge
27		Colonel By Secondary School ( talk)	Wikify
3		Cariboo (electoral district) ( talk)	Wikify
34		Ward Connerly ( talk)	Wikify
4		Michael J Hannafin ( talk)	Orphan
6		Bayeux Manuscript ( talk)	Orphan
3		St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Dadar, Mumbai ( talk)	Orphan
317		NHL 23 ( talk)	Stub
13		The Flying Luna Clipper ( talk)	Stub
15		Rosewood, Kentucky ( talk)	Stub
5		Daniel Yoo ( talk)	Stub
3		Juan de Cervantes (bishop) ( talk)	Stub
3		Gornji Komren ( talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 04:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from simple:Lisa Montgomery into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. NebY ( talk) 12:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

hi, per WP:SIGAPP, you may not enlarge your signature to 16px. could you fix that? lettherebedarklight 晚安 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ lettherebedarklight. I fixed it! `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

should have phrased that better. you may not enlarge your signature at all. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

Stephen

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

Interface administrator changes

Nihiltres

CheckUser changes

Moneytrees

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Virtually all articles on schools below 9th grade (US & Canada) are not notable. When attempting to question their notability via deletion process, it would be appreciated by all involved if you would first attempt deletion via the less impactful WP:PROD first. The most common historic results (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) is that the article will redirected to its governing authority (School district or school board). Once you go to AFD, the article can't be redirected unless and until the discussion has run and been closed; forcing the involvement of multiple editors and 10 days. On the other hand, if you PROD it, any experienced editor can then redirect it and it's done. Much simpler for everyone. With a bit more experience, you can boldly redirect it yourself, but I know at your experience level, I was still wanting a double-check on my thought process. It's just a thought...happy New Year and happy editing. I edit from many IPs, but I'm happy to help if you can find me. 66.232.69.166 ( talk) 07:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Ive done some prods before, but I like the community responce because it gives me insight on information I dont know. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Tagging articles on minor topics for WikiProject United States will be quite contentious, especially when there is already a separate state project tag in place. It is probably best to tag articles for the state projects and leave the national one off most article talk pages. Imzadi 1979  → 07:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I disagre, wikiproject biography is a massive wikiproject with almost 2 million articles, there isn't much wikiprojects in the biography portal. The US wkiproject has 617k articles, which 120k are categories. The state wikiprojects are sometimes semi active (example the arizona wikiproject). State wikiprojects dont get as much attention as the country one, which is why if we added them to the country and state wikiprojects, it narrows the topics for curious people.The state wikiprojects don't receive as much attention, and also aren't that used. Adding it to the country wikiproject makes finding the article and improving it easier. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The founder of WikiProject United States went on a tagging spree about a decade ago, adding that project's tag to any and every article about a topic in or from the United States, and even tried to forcibly merge every state wikiproject banner into the national project banner and attempts to fully merge functional and independent projects into this new project. Those actions were viewed by many editors as being very contentious. Repeating that tagging now may be viewed just as unfavorably.

Tagging articles doesn't necessarily promote activity as many editors operate outside of the projects. Adding too many project banners to a talk page just adds clutter and confusion as well.

If a state-level project is truly inactive, maybe it should be connected into the national project, but it would be better to merge banners, with consensus than just adding even more boxes to a talk page. Imzadi 1979  → 07:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I understand your point, but then again there are 605k unasses articles on wikipedia. There are 2 million articles in the biography wikiproject with no specific wikiprojects for the biography's. I am not mass tagging, i add other tags when needed, such as military history or biography when it makes sense, also I try to include the state wikiprojects but most of the state articles are rarely editied or seen. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 08:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Also not to mention there are many inactive or semi active wikiprojects that still have boxes on articles, like wikiproject Elvis Presley. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 08:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I would suggest that you not tag articles for WikiProject United States unless either:

• The article has some sort of national significance. A local micro-brewery in a small city in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan hardly qualifies.
• The state project for a topic has had its banner merged into the national project, like WikiProject Michigan has.

It's also somewhat disingenuous to tag already assessed articles for WP:USA, like all of the Featured Articles on state highways in California. That's not reducing the "605k unasses articles on wikipedia", but rather, that's mass-tagging assessed articles. Targeting high quality articles like that looks like you're padding WP:USA's stats on the back of the projects and editors that actually did the hard work of improving those articles, swooping in later to take credit.

I will also note that not all wikiprojects are inactive. Even if there isn't a lot of discussion on a project talk page, that doesn't mean it's inactive. Wikiprojects are first and foremost a group of people, and those groups may be busy editing and not talking about all the editing that they are doing. Imzadi 1979  → 08:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, HelpingWorld,

I think you went a little over-the-top tagging problems with this article. There were 5 or 6 tags and the whole article was only about 3 sentences. Maybe limit yourself to the top 2 or 3 problems with an article so you don't overwhelm all of the other content on the page. You don't get a bonus for the number of tags you place on an undeveloped article so try to focus on the most urgent problems and not every issue an article has. I think it also would be demoralizing to the article creator to see their new article weighed down with half a dozen tags. Try to remember the article creator and think of your role as trying to help them by pointing out the most pressing issues, not cataloging every problem with an article. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Looks like you got two messages about the same problem. That's a sign to take it seriously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to make it clear that many problems exist on that article, your right though I should of put way less tags. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 12:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This person does not appear to meet the notability guideline for authors. Generally, for an author to be notable, their books need to be the subject of multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources. I've searched for this author's books online, and I only found one review in a minor website.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Victoria Scott (British author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 18:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, HelpingWorld! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —  Ingenuity ( talk •  contribs) 18:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello HelpingWorld. You made a non-admin closure of this AfD as "merge". I kindly ask you to reconsider the closure, because I do not believe it follows the WP:NACD guideline, which states Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. As the discussion shows, there was controversy as to the appropriate outcome of the AfD in this case. Some editors made policy-based arguments for keeping the article, others made policy-based arguments for merging it, and one editor !voted to delete. It was therefore a close call and should have been handled by an administrator. Please let me know if, after reconsidering, you agree, and if so revert the redirect and relist the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jfire ( talk) 22:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jfire, A few other editors messagned me about this, so yeah I can reconsider. I guess that it was a controversial afd. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 23:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reconsidering. I see now that Julle made much the same points as me earlier. If you agree it was controversial, will you please undo the close and let an administrator evaluate the arguments? Jfire ( talk) 01:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Jfire, how do I undo a close? `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I see you've already undone the redirect, thank you. Following the instructions at WP:UNDO, undo the close as well. Jfire ( talk) 03:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply