User talk:Star Mississippi/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

Talk:OpenAI

Hello. WP:NOTAFORUM violations have resumed on this talk page since its protection expired. I would like you to implement an edit notice saying that the talk page is not a chatbot (what people think it is) or protect it again. Thank you. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging. I have protected it for a year so that only confirmed editors can edit it. If that needs changing to extended confirmed, feel free to file at WP:RFPP as I'd like more eyes on a decision for a page with which I'm not as familiar. Star Mississippi 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Tajamul Islam

Hi @Star Mississippi, That article had been totally rebuilt since nominated and I was about to comment on the AfD to ask for reassessment, I just missed the deadline. How do we get it back? thank you Lewolka (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lewolka. The consensus was pretty clear, but I have restored it to draft space here Draft:Tajamul Islam. I would recommend putting it through AfC for that reassessment to avoid G4, although you're of course by no means obliged to. Let me know if I can be of further help. Star Mississippi 20:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi that is perfect, I'll run it through AfC once ready. All my best, Lewolka (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 13:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Arjun Malhotra

Happened to see your post about the AFD at Liz's talkpage and looked up the AFDs and deleted article. Agree with the outcome on the whole (most of the sources were pretty poor quality; essentially a bunch of lightly edited press-releases) but with a slight tweak. Since the subject's primary claim to fame is co-founding of the infotech giant HCLTech and he is mentioned in that article, I think it would make sense to convert Arjun Malhotra into a (protected) redirect to that article. Is this common-sensical enough for me to just do it?Abecedare (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Abecedare. That certainly makes sense. From a very light scan at sourcing beyond those presented over time, it appears-absent significant developments that could eventually establish notability-that it's Malhotra's likely notability and where it makes sense to discuss him. Feel free to set it up. Star Mississippi 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Hoping that NPPs will take care of categorization etc since I couldn't pick the appropriate one from the index.

Btw per recent browsing. it seems that Malhotra did play a significant role in the foundation and early years of HCLTech (though secondary to Shiv Nadar) but left in 1996 to explore entrepreneurship on his own. Wonder if he regrets that since the HCLTech has grown roughly 50-fold since them while his subsequent ventures haven't been successful on that scale. Probably has an interesting life story that would eventually make for a reasonable wikipedia biography. But before we can (re)create one, we probably need some serious business journalist/academic to put in the work to publish a comprehensive bio or at least a business history of HCLTech. For the moment we don't have high-quality secondary sources; so a redirect should do. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's part of why I agreed to draftification if someone wanted to actively work on it. It isn't a never notable, it's more of a "not quite yet, but possibly by the right editor, eventually" which is why I think extended confirmed was more helpful protection wise. Unlikely a new editor would be able to overcome the reasons why a standalone isn't the best solution, but someone could.

I'm sure @Pppery or one of the other reviewers will sort out the categories or let us know if we need to do anything else. I have yet to master those either. Star Mississippi 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Contribs of ਗੈਪ ਹੈ

Hello again. I'm not exactly sure about what to do with the user in question. Their contributions show that they only edit their user talk page and ramble about stuff that doesn't seem to relate to contributing to the encyclopedia. I think this would fall under "Editing only in user space" in WP:NOTHERE. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 12:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't online and @Bbb23 got to it first. Thanks both! Star Mississippi 23:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Please guide

I am a probationary AFC reviewer and before that I was an IP editor since 2016. At the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilqees Khanum, user Fram played a contradictory role and took me to WP:ANI. I request you to guide me. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're ready to be a full AfC reviewer. I think more time would be helpful to you to learn different policies, which is why I commented as I did. I'm not sure personally that AfD was ANI worthy, but @Fram (courtesy ping, no action needed) is an experienced editor and must have had their reasons for taking it there vs. AfC Talk for processing. Star Mississippi 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't take it to ANI, an IP brought it to ANI mainly because of the retaliation Twinkle1990 did against another commenter in that AfD. I then chimed in at ANI as well, but I didn't start it. Fram (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

yes, I misread and my clarification and your response came in at the same time. Apologies for misstating. Am striking now Star Mississippi 15:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ETA, now I properly read the AfD and understand why and how it went to ANI. Apologies for misunderstaning it originally.

@Twinkle1990 I think you also need to work on understanding sourcing and the role it plays. Adding a source isn't a copyvio issue so long as the content isn't re-added, which I see no indication @BookishReader did. Star Mississippi 15:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Cumulative density function

We've got a problem at Cumulative density function on which I'd appreciate your advice, as the closer of the recent AfD. Trovatore has pointed out that all unsourced material must by policy be removed, and therefore takes great objection to the material that we added (largely material added by me and by Michael Hardy during the AfD). Trovatore is in favour of converting it to a simple redirect or disambig, and feels that without references, the article is trivial and should not be there. The difficulty is this:

• (1) The AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cumulative_density_function) specifically discussed the options of redirect, and was relisted by CycloneYoris specifically to discuss the additional text. Therefore, if we reduce it to a redirect or simple disambig, we are blatantly ignoring your closure and the consensus.
• (2) We can't take this to Deletion review because the problem is basically that Trovatore doesn't like the outcome, not that you closed it wrongly or further evidence has come to light.
• (3) We can't re-open a new AfD straight after the old, for the same reason.
• (4) Redirect is absolutely not an option because several experienced editors rejected it at AfD, on the grounds that readers might be aiming at several different articles, this article's title being an incorrect portmanteau of several different names.
• (5) But if we make it a disambig with no text, how on earth do we write the wretched thing? We can't start "Cumulative density function may refer to..." because the mathematicians will all point out, quite correctly, that it cannot refer to any of those things because it doesn't exist (mathematicians are like that: very precise), and by writing "might refer to" we are expressing an incorrect view that the term is used by reliable sources to refer to those other concepts (which it isn't).
• (6) In fact worse still, Trovatore is quite reasonably insisting on reliable references stating that this is a common misunderstanding, which means we are doomed by the AfD to having a disambig about something that doesn't exist without being able to say it doesn't exist, because no one outside Wikipedia has said so (I can't find any evidence that the term actually exists except in the minds of confused students and the frustrations of their lecturers, neither of whom are not reliable sources).

Basically this is an AfD whose consensus outcome simply cannot be implemented. I don't know what to do. Is there an option to start over? Or do we just blank the wretched thing and reduce it to a redirect and hope no one objects? Any advice would be appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Elemimele! I'll respond at Talk:Cumulative_density_function#Disambiguation_pages_and_common_errors to keep it all central for all of us, and any further discussion. Star Mississippi 21:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Mark redirect as containing history?

Hi, did I do this merge correctly? Not used to redirect categories. Thanks in advance, and thanks for closing the AfD! Suriname0 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! It looks right by me. As Abecedare and I were discussing above, I too am a little rusty on the exact tagging of redirects. One of the NPPers will advise if we've done it wrong and we can learn from it. Thanks for the additional step, I'd missed that one. Star Mississippi 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, great, thanks. I assume they use plugins and such for that work, but I have no idea what. Perhaps I was supposed to edit the talk page of the merge target as well (and not just leave a wikilink in an edit summary), but someone can correct me. Suriname0 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're fine. Or at any rate you did what I would have. One of the many upsides here is we're all forever learning. Star Mississippi 21:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Query

Hey, Star Mississippi,

I hope you are well as we start out the summer. I was making a rare visit to ANI to read the discussion on Twinkle1990 and noticed a comment you made about this being a hard time of the year for AFD participation. I had earlier been pinged to a discussion on relisting AFDs a third time because I've been an active relister, frequently due to a low level of participation in deletion discussions. I had never seen anyone connect it to a time of the year so I was hoping you could say a little more. I know our numbers on CSD G13s are extremely down at this time of the year because six months ago, at least in the Western world, folks were busy with Christmas-related activities, not editing drafts. But is there a summertime lull in AFD Land? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz. Maybe you or Explicit were "off" for a few days, but I feel like I saw more long overdue closures, and in the ones I actioned, there was decidedly less participation and not just the ones where language was an issue, or controversial ones folks want to avoid. Where I live this is the end of the school year so people are headed off for travel, camp, etc. depending on their family or job status. It's also beautiful weather and currently a long weekend so I feel like folks are spending more time offline. I'm not sure if it's a lull or a post-COVID "back to normal" after folks were "extremely online" the prior two summers. Star Mississippi 18:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)