User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:20, 12 April 2018

♠ New messages to the bottom please. I will reply here without pinging unless asked otherwise.
♠ Please link to articles you're asking about by enclosing the title in [[brackets]].
♠ For undeletion requests, provide 3-4 reliable sources that indicate notability.
♠ Less is more. Walls of text and piles of links will be ignored.
♠ Please don't template the regulars. I don't mind criticism but being templated is a bad way to start a conversation.
♠ This talk page is watched by a few friendly talk page stalkers who may respond to messages when I'm not around.

Archives

Archive 1

Re from ChieftanTaurus' talk

Hi, thanks for the answer. As I explained to CT himself, I was tricked due to divergent local policy, but (contrarily to his assumption), I reverted his removal in good faith. Yes, I agree about the snappy comment and, actually, the initial message to Fire90 was IMHO quite snappy as well. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna say the same thing to you I said to him on his talk page: it's almost always better to talk rather than to template. I understand from your point of view what happened, but dropping a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on anyone with more than say, 5 edits, is usually considered somewhat insulting. Templates like that are almost guaranteed to start the conversation off on the wrong note. Neither of you is 100% in the right. I would let the matter drop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate it and I strongly agree with that. Unfortunately, the way CT replied to Fire90 looked really pricky to me (also given the motivation, which to me was absolutely trivial), and thus made me act a bit too impulsively. I have no trouble in saying that I don't know enough en.wiki policies, thus I tried to cling to a standardized template, which would probably have explained the situation much better than me (even though I misunderstood its application field). That "welcome to Wikipedia" looked seriously ridicoulous, but I really didn't want to give a stronger warning, since this wasn't even close to an upper-level warning situation. Anyway yes, recognising errors from both sides, better to end this up. Thanks again for your help, and for "moderating" a situation which may have ended up in bad ways. BTW, although my username is quite deceiving, I'm a man, but don't worry, you're not the first (nor you'll be the last) to think that :-) --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just a personal curiosity: is it comfortable to let users delete contents from their own talks? Isn't it confusing if, let's say, you would like to continue a discussion but the other user erased it? Asking because I couldn't really imagine this was possible.--Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 12:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, apologies for misgendering you. I get that all the time and it drives me crazy so I'm sorry I did it to you.

Second, yeah, en.wiki considers a user's talk page to be their own and gives them discretion to remove things from it. I agree it can be confusing, but I think it's generally understood that if someone removes or archives a discussion, they don't want to continue it. Unless it's a fairly serious matter, usually best to just note that and drop it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I said :-) I would have been mislead myself, probably. And yes, I agree with what you say, however (very personal thought) this implies some kind of strong faith towards users, which may only keep comments they agree with and delete the others without breaking any rule. You know, I'm used with a completely diferent policy, where even if the page is yours, other users' comments aren't. It's always interesting to talk about different ways of handling such situations. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Delirium Sandman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Delirium Sandman.jpg. 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) 18:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax spotting

Thanks and well done for your research challenging the page now archived at Spanish tickler! This is currently the second longest-standing hoax listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw! That's pretty cool, although I'm a touch disappointed I missed the top spot by only a month ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revdelete needed at Oshun

Hello! I saw your revdelete at Delilah a few days ago and I thought I would tell you that one is currently needed in the article Oshun. An editor copied and pasted the Encyclopedia Britannica article into it and the revision needs to be deleted. I was wondering if you could take care of that for me, since I do not have the ability. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I got caught up in some ArbCom stuff and it slipped my mind. Glad to see that Dianaa took care of it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smack Happy Design

Hi, I tried to create a page for Smack Happy Design: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smack_Happy_Design&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm a little confused about the reasons for taking it down. Could you help me make it better?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhanusek (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was mostly copy and pasted from the Smack Happy Design website, which is a copyright violation and is not allowed. It also had elements of promotionalism, which is not allowed under our policy on advertising. If you have significant, in-depth, independent reliable sources that show that the company would meet our criteria for inclusion for businesses, or our general notability guideline, then we may consider including an article about the company. Otherwise, no. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language

I need to learn English, sorry for asking once more. "X is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of windows." You translate to "X is indefinitely banned from removing windows and discussing the addition or removal of windows." I don't arrive at that, whichever way I set brackets, depending on which of the 2 "or" means what. I get to 1) "X is indefinitely banned from (removing or discussing) the addition or removal of windows." (removing the addition??) or 2) "X is indefinitely banned from removing or (discussing the addition or removal of windows)." (removing what??) - How can we simple folks follow when logic is missing? Even if it won't pass, that should be worded unambiguously, for posterity ;) - It's 5 years today that I suggested something for Bach (on his birthday) - which caused an uproar then but happened after a while, and not by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been slightly clearer with commas, as in "X is indefinitely banned from removing, or discussing the addition or removal of, windows." It's a valid construction in English; it just sticks two sentences together without needing to be repetitive. Here it's just slightly more complex because the second clause is a whole phrase unto itself. Something like "X is indefinitely banned from opening or closing windows" is a simpler example, if that helps make sense? Except in our case "or closing windows" has been replaced with the slightly more complex "or discussing the addition or removal of windows." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that helps. Coming from German, the comma before "windows", having "of" for the second term, but not for the first one, seems strange. Accepted. Don't try such a thing in German ;) - I wonder what else I don't know about English grammar. - Different question: in case such a thing passes, may I put "my" removed windows back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the wording of Remedy 3 as written, "this includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox," so no. But as written, that restriction for Cassianto specifically and wouldn't apply to you or any other editor.

That being said, if you found yourself under the fairly similar restriction of infobox probation, as written in Remedy 1.1, you would be indefinitely restricted from "restoring an infobox that has been deleted" per the second bullet point of that remedy. That would apply equally to any article, including articles you have created or expanded. But that's only if you wound up under probation in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear: by "my" i meant one I added but X removed. See Psalm 149, for example. Longish conversation about it in my 2018 talk archive. - Why would I be under probation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this purely hypothetical situation:

If X is under probation or the Remedy 3 wording, then X can't remove infoboxes in the first place and the action should be reported as a violation of their sanction.

If X is not under probation or the Remedy 3 wording at the time of the removal, there is nothing stopping them from removing an infobox.

If you are not under probation in this situation, then there is nothing stopping you from enacting step two of WP:BRD and reverting the removal of the infobox. However, if you and X wind up in an edit war about removing or restoring the infobox, then an uninvolved admin could put you and X on infobox probation (along with any other participants in this hypothetical edit war), which would then restrict you all from removing or replacing infoboxes in future.

The situation I'm describing above is purely hypothetical, and I have not looked at the discussion you linked me, because I don't want to be accused of coloring my answer one way or another based on that discussion. Also in that vein, I'm not comfortable going into any more detail with this hypothetical situation, because that's all it is - hypothetical. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly hypothetical. I have not edit-warred in my whole career, and don't plan to do so. At present, I live happily with voluntary 1RR, and for infoboxes even 0RR (when an IP reverted on Requiem (Duruflé), a friend reverted once, thinking the IP didn't know what they were doing. Turned out they knew exactly. Most pointy discussion of 2017 if you ask me.) Now: X reverted on the psalm, twice (another IP stepped in). Could I give up my (voluntary) 0RR on the grounds that the revert was kind of "wrong", being by someone who was later restricted from such reverts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about not wanting to see a discussion to avoid a biased answer, but think you could still read it, and see that pro and anti people can still talk. Alex Shih also took part. (It was before the case request.) I think you should look at the Requiem because SchroCat mentioned the same example in which he didn't take part. - No answer expected, take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article: The Age of Reason, by a user who died, on a funeral day for me, - just to hint at my mood. - Looking at the arb case: it seems to aim for solving a war which I fail to see, - all I see is something like ten attempts per year (may be even not so many) to get rid of a longstanding infobox. Waiting for the age of reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, but Gerda, I think this thread has reached the point where it is no longer achieving much of anything. If you have general comments about the case, perhaps you could place them on the talk page there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said it there. So much nicer to talk to a person than a committee, - and you were so kind to reply there. Thank you for your patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts for Discussion idea

Regarding your suggestion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Camarillo suicide by deputy, I'm rather intrigued by it. I'm sure there's all sorts of issues with it — might just turn into pile-on BITE deletes — but at least on the face of it, if ACTRIAL becomes permanent, it would a cool format to consider. Sort of combines the AfC/NPP work into an editathon/outreach-sort of structure. At any rate, just wanted to comment so it doesn't disappear into the MfD archives forever. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little off-the-wall, but I think it might be a better system than what we have. My particular concern is one that SmokeyJoe (courtesy ping) frequently brings up at draft MfDs, which is that AfC is set up in a way that encourages people to work on hopeless drafts without explaining that they are hopeless. All of our templates are worded like "hey you can improve this!" instead of "this is not within our scope because it's an essay/how-to/advertisement/school assignment, and we don't take things not in scope so you should rework this into an article or do something else."

One problem is that there's disagreement as to whether something is within scope, just like in the discussion above. One reviewer might see a given draft as out of scope and decline, another might see it as valid and accept - so you get wildly varying results depending on which reviewer finds your draft. It's so unlike almost anything else on WP, which is all done by consensus and agreement among multiple people (which is hardly perfect of course but at least it's somewhat less subject to variations). I think turning AfC into a noticeboard like AfD might make the results a little less variable.

I think the discussion format would be more helpful and welcoming to newbies than AfC presently. It would centralize discussion about a particular draft, allowing for input from uninvolved users, rather than forcing newbies to post on the talk pages of various reviewers, who may or may not be responsive at any given time. It's not a guarantee that anyone would participate, but at least it makes the conversation available.

Anyway, not sure if it's anything I'd ever formally propose, but I'm glad you liked the concept in theory :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. List each submission for a week. Editors can make suggestions or vote delete amd any editor can just accept the draft and include a rational. Everything gets actioned within a week. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the issue of AfC never saying "This will never become an article." I've commented elsewhere that one of the issues with AfC is that the process is actually skewed to help PR firms or freelancers: it encourages resubmission and dialogue over a draft, and eventually, after enough back and forth and enough improvement, something that really never should have gotten to mainspace is approved because it met all the other suggestions. The people who are most likely to work with reviewers being the people who are financially motivated: no one is going to go through 6 declines to get their biography of a notable 17th century cleric approved. The DfD idea you proposed sounds great on two fronts: it'd allow for people to mainspace notable things that your average reviewer will decline because it occurred before 1990 or has wonky formatting, and it would make it possible to end the constant back and forth on drafts that simply have no hope. Pinging Primefac, as I know he's always interested in constructive AfC improvement ideas. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with DFD. You'd just have to be very clear about how it was presented as an RFC, because based on the discussion hell that has happened when even discussing "deleting drafts" (mostly at CSD) it'll need to be airtight. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi there!

Since a while, my userpage has