User talk:M.O.X/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with M.O.X. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - ... (up to 100)

Caption reverted

I reverted this edit] at Indigenous Australians as it seemed very dubious. I can say with great confidence that having that caption will require clear sourcing. The wp:edit summary was not helpful.- sinneed (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Please keep your Wikipedia account secure, and use the "stay logged in" option with extreme care.- sinneed (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Names for Artix Entertainment

I reverted your edits to the Core Staff section of the AE article... frankly, while a search may bring up these names, there have been no official confirmations of them. Because of that, their names cannot be officially sourced, and thus are only original research (or very, very educated guesses... for example, it's pretty obvious when you look at the staff list in the front of the MQ Artbook that Milton Pool is Miltonius). So... they have no place in the article.

Besides that, as the note at the top of the article says, the AE staff did actually request that the names be removed, except for the few they've officially released. Actually, I corresponded directly with Safiria on the request of Artix (and she was using her official Battleon email address, so I know it was actually her), and confirmed that it was true, and they really did want the names removed. So the AE Wikiproject sort of talked it over and decided that we'd respect their wishes and not reveal any other names in the article, even though there are a couple that we know for fact (Warlic, for example, always used to have JD Adams on his forum profile). Just explaining why I reverted your edits. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at WP:PERM/R. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--03:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue!Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution Rollback is only for blatant vandalism Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user pageIf you have any questions, please do let me know.--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Welcome templateHi - I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making this change. The Jimmy Wales account was actually a blocked impersonator (but now redirects to the correct account). However, a number of people (myself included) have a script installed which strikes out users who are blocked and it will look very strange to anyone reading your welcomes to see Jimbo as blocked. Regards, 7 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oh I didn't know that thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No problemo. 7 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]IP Block at my SchoolThis user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). M.O.X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Talk to me 09:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Decline reason: If you are caught in a range block, you will need to follow the process at WP:IPEXEMPT in order to request an exemption from it - as you're not directly blocked, there's nothing we can do at this moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.Is there an actual problem here? You seem to be editing just fine now. Is your complaint that you can't edit at school? If so, when you're at school, don't log in and instead you'll see a notice with an IP address. That should help us figure out if we can at least allow you to log-in and edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ok after I come back from school holidays I'll do this. Thanks anyway.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fridae'sDoomHi Fridae'sDoom. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 17:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I realise that but I thought past experience would help but I see things are different here, I know I'm capable of doing the job. The problem is you can't go through a trial period as such so I'll probably have to get some more experience. Thanks anyway, Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you still wish to run, despite the fact you will more likely than not be unsuccessful? -FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No I don't want to run, but I think a trial period to allow candidates to run would let other administrators see if the user has what it takes. Isn't it better to evaluate the user based on what you see them do, not what they've done? After said trial period the new admin will be under close observation and receive help where help is due. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you may find Editor Review process useful. It is similar to the situation you describe above. Regards, FASTILY ^{Happy 4th of July!!!} 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah ok I already submitted one, thanks FASTILY! :D Appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]QuestionHow would I create userboxes for my page? l5€for (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Go to and pick one you like, if you want a sidebox like mine put your userbox in between {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} do this on separate lines so for each new box it is one line and if you want a line separating each userbox, say if I wanted to separate my achievements from my group memberships I'd add {{userboxbreak}} between the userboxes. Hope this helped.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Okay, Thanks for the help. l5€for (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You're very welcome. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]How do my userboxes look for a user who just joined an hour ago? =P l5€for (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sorry forgot to link you to the page... here it is if you didn't see it: Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Account Creation ToolI requested access to the Account Creation Tool, have read and understand the Terms and Conditions, and hold myself resposible for any problems that may arise. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Date on welcome messageI've noticed that the date after your signature on the welcome messages you've been adding to new users' talk pages today is incorrect. See User talk:Ronald Chevalier for an example. --JD554 (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for that, I'll fix it right away. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]AdventureQuest WorldsHi Fridae, I've moved the old article to User:Fridae'sDoom/AQW, happy editing. One thing I want to make clear though is that the article will need to cite reliable secondary sources. The design notes (a primary) and wiki (not reliable) you linked to are not sufficient. Furthermore, to justify a seperate article you'll need to show how the game is notable - you mention that the mechanics and storyline are worth noting, but who's noted it? If you can construct a "critical reception" section, citing reviews from reliable publications, that would be perfect. If you've not already seen it, WP:VG/RS has a good list of online sources, and of course dead-tree magazines are preferable. My final observation is that the article has an in-depth description of the game's storyline. For the editing of this, I refer you to WP:WAF - again, the amount of space we give to describing the fictional elements should be proportional to the attention given by secondary sources. I hope this helps, Marasmusine (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for that Marsmusine, I'll work with some others who want to expand the article. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Your welcome templateHi, just a suggestion that you stick with one of the established templates such as W-graphical when greeting new users. I saw your template when leaving a message at User talk:Josocal. The template seems overly detailed to drop on a newbie and not particularly friendly (I speak of the don't-be-a-dick admonishment). Just sayin'. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]True but it's a summary still, it's concise and to the point, besides only one of the users whose talk page I posted it on bothered to ask me or an admin for help in fact around 10 - 20 of them just ignored the welcome message and decided to vandalise articles or create articles which were promptly deleted. Thanks for your concern though. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I also find the message overwhelming (no newbie needs to know about applying for administrator or becoming an account creator) and a bit rude. But if nothing else, at least fix the signature. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I fixed the signature when CliffC posted, I thought it'd be a good idea to give them a lowdown of enwiki so that they know procedures and so on, I forgot to subst: that one sorry. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature Features and admins: This week's highlights Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational NewsRead this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]How do I remove certain categories?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.My user page has too many categories and I don't want a lot of them to be listed at the bottom of the user page, is there a way I could remove them??? Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Each category your userpage is in is the result of you transcluding a certain template on your userpage. To remove your userpage from a given category, simply the associated userbox from your userpage. For example, you can remove Category:Metapedianist Wikipedians by removing {{user meta}}. Skomorokh 12:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some templates have support for category suppression so you can use still display the template but not have your user page added to the category. Try adding "|nocat=true" to each template that adds a category to see if it removes the category. For the ones that don't work, try "|categories=no" as an alternative. Not all of the templates you're using support this, but it will help you remove some of the categories without having to remove the templates themselves. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks guys! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!Stubs Spectrum 7 Ronglu Tim Harrod The Regiment (video game) Icons.com Billy Kay (actor) To the Bottom of the Sea Robert Haynes 2002 European Men's Handball Championship Kevin Bleyer Extended Secondary School Oroch language George Scully, Jr. Chatichai Choonhavan Even language Asia-Pacific Kumyk language New Year's resolution Ulch language Cleanup MP3 Men's spaces Forest Nenets language Merge Unobservable List of African American United States Senators Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream Add Sources 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship qualifying round 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship elite round The Zoo (TV series) Wikify Charlie Bewley Get Set Go Cardinal tetra Expand FIVB World Grand Prix 1997 Donald Rumsfeld Rush LimbaughSuggestBot 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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Help

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.I set up an archive per the instructions on MiszaBot's page but the threads aren't being archived, I might have set up the archive wrong but could someone please take a look and tell me what's wrong? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The parameter algo = 7d should have been algo = old(7d). I've taken the liberty of fixing it for you. Also, as it is at the moment the bot will archive to User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive. The counter parameter will be ignored. If you were wanting it to use User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive 1 you should change the parameter to archive = User_talk:Fridae'sDoom/Archive %(counter)d. Regards, AJCham 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks :DYour GA nomination of George WashingtonThe article George Washington you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Washington for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]RFAI get involved in way too many tiffs to get through an RFA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Before wasting your time, talk to the regs at WP:FPC. I am always fighting with those guys.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you retract and apologize for the racist comment and show clear need for the tools, I'd support you. (to just randomly jump in) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you wish to argue do so on your own talk pages please, you may have differences but set them aside and you'll see that Tony's work has helped improve, as many others like him, the quality of Wikipedia's articles, surely one must consider that. EDIT: Many administrators have less GAs, FAs, VPs, DYKs, etc. than Tony and when considering someone you shouldn't judge based on mishaps but on the eagerness and tireless contributions they've made and shown.Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] So you can get an idea of what is going on at FPC, I feel there has been a series of ridiculous decisions at both FPC and VPC influenced in large part by the above editor, who I promised I would pretend not to believe is a racist. Currently, there is an atmosphere where the community first started claiming I was bringing down WP by spamming articles with images. Although, I am not always right, I pointed out that most of the rest of WP feels that adding somewhat tangential images is useful. That pattern has ended and a new one has emerged where they are supporting versions other than the ones I create to be consistent with long-standing preferences. Regardless of whether Raeky (talk · contribs) and I are seeing eye to eye, an RFA is not going to get through at a time when they are going out of their way to vote against or ignore the majority of my work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Acknowledged, yes I concur, I know you would have made a good admin. I'll ask again in a few months. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here is the thing. In order to get an understanding of what is going on look at this. Note that at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture all but one image has almost no perspective distortion. Then see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Willis Tower2 and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Control Tower 18 and loop junction (2nd nomination). Basically, when I learned how to use hugin, they started acting as if the preferred presentation includes perspective distortion. I can't run around calling everyone a racist, but it is pretty ridiculous over there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh I see, well I understand. Surely tiny disputes are no grounds for bias in an RfA.... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 07:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] In my experience at RFA no votes are cast aside and by the way they are treating me at FPC/VPC, if everybody coordinates there bias, it is not considered a bias. I will wait until the winds change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh ok, I respect your decision and keep up the good work. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]TUSC token efc1c123d6c9d8b319a616090939be71I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Verified, signed and timestamped for archiving. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 08:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Errr...

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.How do I set up indexing for my archive like on other user's talk pages? Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]This is one of those things where it is easier for me to just do it, and show you what I have done, than to try and explain it. So, if you'd like me to simply set it up and then show you how I did it, please just let me know the time you'd like - ie after how many days of no further input would you like sections to be archived? 30 days? 48 hours? etc. I will see your response below; no need for a further {{helpme}}.Alternatively (and easier) talk to me with this. Chzz ► 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]7 days is what I set for the archiving. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you'd already set it up. I checked it; the only problem I saw was, there was no initial archive number, so I just changed that to | counter = 1. I also think you'll want some kind of link, so I've added an {{archive box}}. I think it will start working within 24 hours, but I don't see anything older than 7 days right now anyway. Please let me know if you have any problems. Cheers, Chzz ► 12:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It is working. Chzz ► 21:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes it is, thanks for your help Chzz. I thought I did something wrong just I didn't know what that was. Your help is appreciated. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]ClerkingHello there. I have passed your request onto the clerks-only mailing list for discussion. Please be aware that we only take on new clerks from time to time, and typically new clerks are taken from the ranks of very experienced users or those with special or unique skills that can be of use in the field of clerking. Nonetheless, I'll mention your name and bring your request to the attention of the other clerks. Please note that because we only take on new clerks intermittently, it may take a while to get back to you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]J. Woodland HastingsI am new to this and finding my way with limited time - so excuse me for now if I screw up somehow - especially with the codes and not knowing how to find my way through the maze of pages etc. The request was to "expand it," and for "more citations for verification." It seems to me that the article is already expanded enough [unless there is a different meaning?]. I have inserted many more verification connections to my already extensive citations, added 3 more citations and made a few other minor changes. Hopefully I have done what was requested [?]. What must I do next to move it along in the process? Or do I just wait? Photeros (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I understand, looking at the article now it's almost done, all the work that needs to be done is expanding the information on his career. When that's done the article will be marvelous. :) Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note, you might want to add what information you can on his university years, childhood etc. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Trivial GA nominationsHi, I just reverted your GA nomination of Second Sino-Japanese War because I saw that you have been nominating articles that are not close to GA level, ones that you are not involved in. I have reverted this recent nomination because these actions of yours cause others to waste time trying to assess the article. I think it is wrong of you to nominate an article if you have no past involvement and if you have no intention of future involvement. A similar nomination of yours at Kriegsmarine was mercifully cut short by the reviewer, but the one at George Washington took the reviewer quite a long time, and resulted in the article not being listed. Please consider getting involved in some article, getting familiar with its problems before nominating it. Such involvement greatly increases the likelihood of a back-and-forth interaction between the reviewer and the involved editors. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]That was the only way I knew how to get the criteria, I'll refrain from doing this now. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Being involved in the article is the key. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Understood, I'm currently focussing on the Founding Fathers since they had their GA Status revoked :S It's going to be a while before you hear from me lol. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As the Aussies say: "Good on you!" Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hehe, On'ya mate! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]WelcomeHi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages. A few tips that you might find helpful: Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions. The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up. Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:M.O.X/Archive 1/header Other talk page banners This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Articles for creation User‑class This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages User This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation redirects here. M.O.X was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 24 December 2018. Archives Articles for Creation (search) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 Reviewer help 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Helper script 2013–2014 2014–2018 Participants 2015–2017 2017–2018 Old AFCH requests v t e AFC backlog AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of November 18, 2024 Oldest unreviewed draft is 6 weeks old I noticed an unusual yellow color at the top of this page, and when I went to investigate, I notice our "oldest draft" color scale had turned from red to yellow, indicating the oldest unreviewed draft is only 6 weeks old. Nice work team :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Only five drafts left in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/6 weeks ago today :) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Now "5 weeks old". Thank you everyone! Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] And we're at risk of dropping < 1,000 soon, if we're not careful. Then where will we be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] In a wonderfully healthy situation 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] The glorious thing about this is that I believe that AFC is now working as we always wished it to work. Please let us continue to review at this broad pace. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] My decline of Draft:Lola bunny orel sex took us below 1000 albeit briefly. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] ROFLMAO. What a thing to decline! 🤣 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Crazy 🤣 Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Six weeks seems to be the category that refuses to die. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Eh... people can wait a little bit for their drafts ;-) Primefac (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Acceptance of Gerard Gertoux I have an increasing feeling that this draft ought to have not been accepted, and yet I viewed it as having a better than 50% chance of survival. It may be that it is edited drastically by the community. I will not quarrel with AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] No complaints from me, clearly this was thought about and it has multiple eyes on it now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] That was my intention, and I think it will have sufficient attention now. I hadn't realised there were pro and anti Gertoux factions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] After much investigation and not a little editing of the accepted article I have concluded that my acceptance was in error. I have set out my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux and invite opinions to keep or to delete. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Rarely have I seen an AfD so heavily and bizarrely defended by a creating editor! It's very hard to tell what the eventual consensus will be. I don't really care either way, though, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] N Deleted at AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] CopyPatrolBot I declined Draft:Kogbagidi for poor sourcing etc., and luckily happened to look at the logs where it said 07:51, 30 October 2024 CopyPatrolBot marked revision 1254284179 on Draft:Kogbagidi as a potential copyright violation (Tag: PageTriage) ...so I ran Earwig's detector on it, and sure enough, over 90% copyvio. I don't know where this CopyPatrolBot reports its findings, but is there any way this could be flagged up on the draft page somehow, or otherwise made a bit more obvious? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] This bot reports copyright violations at https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org, where anyone with copyright expertise can help review these reports. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Unsourced or badly sourced lists Is it really normal that these get accepted? Both User:SafariScribe and User:I dream of horses accepted lists where none of the entries were referenced, and User:CoconutOctopus accepted a third one despite only 2 of the entries being referenced, and a 3rd entry being contradicted by the source. I first took it up with the first two editors, but as one denies there being any issues, and the third editor has now joined their ranks, this looks to be something systematic and not a problem with a specific editor or one careless moment. The articles are Draft:List of Indian state reptiles, Draft:List of Indian state fishes (both no sources for the subject when accepted) and Draft:List of Indian state butterflies (one source confirming 2 entries and contradicting a 3rd, the other 30 or so entries unsourced). I have redraftified all three. Fram (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Make that 4 (by three editors), Draft:List of Indian state amphibians as well. No references for any state amphibians were provided... Fram (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] I know this wasn't the point of Fram's message, but I noticed that someone (ironically, a major sock producer!) had opened SPI on the author of these articles, 80.2.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), suspecting them of being the same user as 91.235.65.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is now blocked for two years. They asked for CU to confirm, which was obviously declined, but both IPs do geolocate very near each other, and both seem to have interest in these 'national symbol' type articles. If I had to guess, I'd say it's one person editing, maybe from a term-time vs. holiday location, hence the different IPs. IP 80 was already blocked for BE for 6 months... which expired today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] That would explain the troll-like creation of talk pages without articles and the "thank you" messages when you explain issues, which are afterwards completely ignored / repeated. But, indeed, not the reason I posted here. Fram (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] If every entry in a list has its own article, then in practice it's mostly alright for the list to rely on the referenced content of those linked articles. I think reviewers should make sure to check that the linked articles do actually support the draft list's claims – especially the list's inclusion criteria. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Which in this case was absolutely not the case though, the claims were not in the linked articles either. Fram (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Right, I agree that these shouldn't have been accepted, I'm just guessing why "unsourced list" wasn't an immediate red flag to the reviewers. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] It would appear that the reviewers need a gentle reminder that sometimes verification is an important part of the reviewing process; I know that we don't necessarily require checking every reference for every fact, but I do agree that in this case verification quickly falls flat. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Over the years I've seen a lot of either hoax entries or just unsourced assertions over such "official state ...." or "National symbols of ...." etc. These always need careful checking. As they were blocked before for 6 months for block evasion and have continued with the same types of edit I would suspect they are still evading. KylieTastic (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Strange AFCH edit Tracked in github.com Issue #392 Not sure what happened here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] At a guess I would say it got confused with the WikiProject Former countries template containing {{{class}}}. KylieTastic (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] That shouldn't confuse it because lots of templates still use that parameter — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] But they don't use the parameter code itself {{{class}}} which could confuse. Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Good point! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Definitely a bug. Will take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Rechecking User:SafariScribe's reviews SafariScribe (t · c · reviews) Too many of User:SafariScribe's recent reviews were problematic (mainly the declines, but also accepts). This is documented at User talk:SafariScribe#List of Indian state fishes. A user whose draft was rejected then also reached out to me on my user talk page, User talk:Fram#@Fram taking up the battle vs SafariScribe. For new reviews I would propose to first see if things have improved, and not take any action now: but it would be nice if people found the time to check a number of their reviews and overturn them if necessary. Fram (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] As a technical/procedural note, SafariScribe is an NPR so they automatically have access to AFCH through that. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would note that they are not autopatrolled so all their accepts are re-checked by NPP anyway. Running some quick checks and out of 1172 accepts: 62 (5.3%) have been deleted (and a spot check found many were as the submitter was found to be block evading); 152 are redirects (but my code does not show how many were accepted as a redirect vs how many redirect after); 12 (1%) currently tagged for notability; 13 (1%) tagged for multiple issues. So certainly for someone who I know works on the older submissions including those in the grey areas of notability the stats for accepts don't look out of sorts. I agree I did not like the acceptance of List of Indian state fishes but the discussion at least shows it was not the failure to check the sources but working on the idea that sources do exist. Personally I don't like that reasoning and think if you are aware of them add them, but to be fair to SafariScribe I have come across autopatrolled editors creating articles in mainspace will zero reliable sources just using the "sources exist" excuse when challenged, and also AfD discussion that end in keep because "sources exist" but none added to the article. I don't have a quick way to sanity check declines. KylieTastic (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's the declines I'm more worried about, for biteyness reasons. I noticed a few weird ones from SafariScribe some time ago, but satisfied myself that they'd gotten more accurate and more helpful with responding to questions from submitters. I don't think I have much time in the next couple of days to check on any of these declines myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would note that they are not autopatrolled so all their accepts are re-checked by NPP anyway. NPPs can mark their own AFC accepts as reviewed. The software only prevents their own page creations from being marked as reviewed by themselves. I haven't checked if the editor in question here is also marking their own accepts as patrolled, which is normally allowed, or if they're leaving them for other reviewers. Someone might want to check that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I checked a random five of their recent accepts, and they hadn't marked any as patrolled. (I agree that it wouldn't have been wrong for them to do so – it's just worth knowing for this discussion.) jlwoodwa (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I had actually done some spot checks already and I had already seen enough of how they worked in the past to not consider it a concern - sorry I should have mentioned. Some of their review choices may be wrong and should be challenged, but from what I have observed I believe they have been acting in good faith and they are not a bad-actor. Probably slowing somewhat would be help. Also although it's good to see the very old submissions being cleared it should not take precedence over correctness, it is fine and preferable to leave a review if your not sure. KylieTastic (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don't think anyone has suggested that SafariScribe is doing anything other than acting in good faith, to be clear. -- asilvering (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I also checked yesterday half a dozen (mix of acceptances and declines; avoiding ones I had previously reviewed myself) and didn't find any issues with them. (One acceptance was a bit borderline, maybe, but no more than that.) The acceptances were already patrolled, not by SafariScribe but by uninvolved reviewers. Granted, this wasn't a large sample, esp. given how much SafariScribe gets through, and had I found problems I was prepared to keep going, but I didn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] There are times when I've found declines from SafariScribe that I disagree with, but there's always a rationale for it and it's almost never an unwarranted "reject", which is something that would be more pressing. Declined articles ideally lead to specific improvements and from there we have better articles that can be accepted; SafariScribe is contributing to the health of the system IMO. Replying here because I concur with the last sentence ("given how much SafariScribe gets through" in particular); what I see is a fraction of what gets processed. Reconrabbit 18:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] SafariScribe is not autopatrolled, but they are marking their AfC accepts as patrolled. Checking the patrol log this morning, every patrol appears to be an AfC draft they accepted (e.g., Jan Koneffke, Jonathan Abrams (writer), Where's Wanda?, 3D Gaussian splatting, Zdzisław Goliński, and Paul Atanga Nji). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That log shows they appear to be marking the drafts as patrolled not the accepted articles. I thought when an article was moved to main-space it reset that flag is you weren't autopatrolled. KylieTastic (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I thought so too, but apparently not? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] In Page Curator, all those appear patrolled by SafariScribe. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Jumping back in to add that SafariScribe marked Mary Robertson as reviewed. Given that this particular article has been a sore spot in this very discussion, I found it worth mentioning. I have unmarked it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don't really want to be piling on, and I've not done any review of other accepts so this is going to be unbalanced, but XW10508 seemed a little concerning. I've tagged it for now, but I don't think the refs are any good? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Alpha3031 I don't like it either, but I'm not a WP:MEDRS expert. I've unreviewed it (it was reviewed by another NPPer) for now. -- asilvering (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] MEDRS aside, this has zero sources that count towards the GNG. I have PRODed it. Toadspike [Talk] 15:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] SafariScribe has been contributing to AfC for months, and he has done many AfCs. Thus, I have only seen a small fraction of his work. However, I cannot recall stumbling across AfCs in which I could see how he demonstrated a severe lack of competence; I must admit though that I have only looked into AfC declines. User:Fram, could you do us a favour and give us a list of, say, 10 recent drafts SafariScribe accepted/declined/rejected to support your "statement" (I don't want to use the word allegation) that Too many of User:SafariScribe's recent reviews were problematic? This would help getting a better understanding of the situation. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The discussion listed at the top has 7 examples (from one day this week), and another editor has listed 2 science articles they shouldn´t have accepted. Fram (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If the recommendation is to slow down at AfC, I think we should look into making the same recommendation against fairly rapid relisting of discussions [1] and some questionable AfD closes (nominating an article they accepted at AfC for deletion, closing withdrawn nomination (imo a minor oversight), closing discussion they !voted in. The rest of their AfD closes look okay though; maybe these were just one-off learning moments. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] AfC spot check: I have checked seven reviews, randomly choosing to do so from timestamp 2024-10-27T12:00:04Z onwards. Alstom Citadis 100 is a good accept. Draft:Harry Paulo is a questionable decline, as my limited access to the BNA shows that the subject might meet the GNG (see source 3, for instance) and probably meets WP:NACTOR #1, based on the reviews cited. Draft:George Oliver Scott is a good decline. Draft:Jeffrey Yoo Warren is a good decline based on the state of the draft, though a quick search shows that the subject is likely notable [2][3][4][5]. Draft:Moe Dimanche is a good decline. Upsweep is a good accept, which I have now marked as patrolled (NPP). Draft:Jake Van Tubbergen is probably a bad decline – the sources are probably enough to meet the GNG [6][7][8], and I haven't even checked all of them (some local news sites are blocked in Europe, probably GDPR stuff). Considering this is a random sample, I am surprised by the number of reviews I disagree with (2/7 = 29%). However, haven't reviewed at AfC in a hot sec and might be rusty, so I'd appreciate if someone checked my work. All the disagreements could've been averted by more thorough source-checking on the part of SafariScribe, which seems to be the main/only issue here. Toadspike [Talk] 22:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Toadspike, agree on #7, so I've resubmitted and accepted it. #2 probably also fine but I'll leave that for someone who can check the refs. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Examples of other recent declines which seem problematic to me (showing the state of the article at the time of the decline): [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] These 5 declines were all on the same day, within 32 minutes. Fram (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Pierre de Wet: Declined as v/bio; the draft cites 5 sources out of which one (Literator, FN 3) seems to be a quite good one; however, FN 1 and 4 are bare links, FN 5 refers to a diagram/JPEG file; FN 2 refers to Beeld. This "sourcing" situation indicates that rather than looking into the sources, the footnotes were "slapped" onto the draft's sentences. A quick comparision of the source referred to in FN 3 and the draft shows that the source was not sufficiently read. While there may be notability, the draft clearly doesn't demonstrate any in accordance with WP:NFILMMAKER. Draft:Eve Bernhardt: Declined as v; the draft cites three tabloid newspapers, and glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com. While this sourcing isn't awful, there is room for improvement. What is not okay, however, is that 50 per cent of the draft is based on hearsay due to a lack of references to any sources at all. Draft:Anna Lundberg: Declined as v/bio; the draft cites Metro, Express, Instagram, and Facebook, (i.e., generally unreliable sources) which make up 30 per cent of the footnotes (and I can spot 4 duplicate Footnotes by just glimpsing). I didn't check all the sources, but my 6-link sample makes me presume that the cited sources are non-notability indicating, tabloid-media like ones that either don't mention the subject, or simply mention her without discussing her. Draft:Sayali Salunkhe: Declined as v; the draft has 8 footnotes with references to four sources (TOI, IANS, ITAA, and Sony LIV). IANS hosts a press release, Sony LIV is a primary source, and ITAA is also a primary source. This leaves us with a single source. Large sections of this BLP are unsourced. Carla Guevara Laforteza: Declined as lacking sources in the Filmography and "Notable stage credits" sections. None of the sections had any references to any sources, and were subsequently shrunk due to a lack of sources (Special:Diff/1253541304/1254926670). Fram, I must admit I fail to understand how these declines "seem problematic". Is there something I have not seen? Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft:Pierre de Wet has four good sources, not one, and one (the diagram) which contains good sources, which the editor probably didn't know how to source directly. You claim "A quick comparision of the source referred to in FN 3 and the draft shows that the source was not sufficiently read.", but ref is purely used to reference "was a filmmaker in South Africa.", where the source says "Pierre de Wet is often referred to as ‘the father of the Afrikaans film industry’", which not only verifies the referenced claim, but also makes it again clear that he is really, truly notable (not that there "may" be notability). That some sources are bare links or an offline source does not in any way support your claim that the footnotes were slapped on or not sufficiently read (at least not by the creator), e.g. source 4[14] directly supports the claim made. Draft:Eve Bernhardt: you are aware that a tabloid "format" doesn't necessarily mean tabloid "contents" surely? I have no idea why you so rudely dismiss Classic Images, which seems a perfectly legitimate (and notability-indicating) source for this type of article. It is good enough for GAs like Frank Sinatra, The Godfather or Ben-Hur (1959 film). Draft:Anna Lundberg: are you serious? It also uses The Observer, RadioTimes, BBC, Channel4, Independent, ... We have an article purely about her from People[15], which is listed as reliable in WP:RSPN. But the decline has a big tag stating "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This is just plain wrong. Draft:Sayali Salunkhe doesn't have "one source", it has four different articles from one newspaper. And the awards source may be primary, but it is independent and an indication of notability. Carla Guevara Laforteza: an unsourced filmography section for an otherwise adequately sourced article about a clearly notable person should never be a reason to decline a draft, it is putting way higher requirements on drafts than on other articles (no article would be draftified in the state this one was in). Accept the draft, put "refs needed" on these sections, and you have actually a decent new article and a happy new editor. Fram (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is why I never use AfC if I can help it. The vast majority of reviewers are terrible at reviewing and practically none follow WP:AFCPURPOSE (especially its last sentence). That entire section should honestly be scrapped if it's not going to actually be used. The section below it, WP:AFCSTANDARDS, is also pretty great, because I've seen so many of those listed non-appropriate decline reasons used as decline reasons. Heck, you just brought up the bare urls one yourself that Johannes Maximilian just erroneously used. Silverseren^C 16:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Silver seren, can I convince you to become a reviewer yourself? Even if it's just to occasionally resubmit-and-accept any problematic reviews you come across, it would be a huge help. I originally joined up to help fish out the occasional obvious pass from the backlog, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I was actually planning to do so in the future (though after the end of the year, since I'm currently locked in to #1week1woman until then and it takes up the majority of my wiki time). Silverseren^C 16:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I've added you to the list so that you can go ahead and give it a go if you happen to bump into something that needs mainspacing between now and then. No worries if you don't. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Johannes Maximilian, I would agree with Fram that the first two and the last of these are problematic declines simply by reading your descriptions of them. Please try only to decline articles that would be extremely likely to be deleted at AfD, or which have problems that can't easily be fixed by normal editing. We can't expect perfection of new editors. For the other two, it sounds to me (again without looking carefully at the drafts myself) that, if declined, substantial comments should have been given so that the submitter could understand what to improve. -- asilvering (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would point out that Draft:Eve Bernhardt was a main-space creation that was draftified and submitted with no change so SafariScribe was just agreeing with the Broc. I must admit what always annoys me with these types of discussion is when people berate others for not accepting an article(s) then leave them languishing in draft. Anyone who reviews a draft enough to criticise another for not accepting should take the simple action to submit/accept or just move to main-space. However, as Draft:Eve Bernhardt was created in 2024 by Samuelrclaesson a sock of Dbzsamuele blocked in 2007 so I've G5ed it. KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Which I have now disputed. G5 is a trash deletion policy and I have a low opinion of its use in any case that isn't connected to actual issues with the article itself. Because we're here to build an encyclopedia and G5's purpose is to harm the encyclopedia to "punish" someone who's banned, not to actually defend and improve said encyclopedia. If banned editors could actually manage to quietly make a new account and just make good articles and stop whatever behavior and actions that got them banned in the first place, then we'd all be better off for it. And this draft seems quite in my wheelhouse of what I work on. Silverseren^C 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I actually agree and I wish/hope that your "I take responsibility" is taken as a valid argument as there have been quite a few articles I have worked on and fully checked that then got G5ed. Ideally I would like to see G5 changed to allow such challenges officially. At the moment G5 is used as punitive against the blocked editor rather than consider the value of the article or others input. If your challenge works I would definitely use myself. Another new article in main-space is always the goal.... I watch with interest. KylieTastic (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If worked on includes substantial edits, then WP:G5 didn't apply. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @KylieTastic if this happens to you, query it with the deleting admin, and if necessary take them to WP:DRV. That's absolutely not supposed to happen. @Silver seren, thanks for fixing that one up. I will say that in my experience G5 is not at all about punishment and is very much about defending the encyclopedia - the sockpuppet deletions I've done are usually editors who were initially blocked for things like UPE, source fabrication, etc, so G5 allows us to clean that up without wasting everyone's time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree that giving submitters advice on what and how to improve is generally a good thing to do. I also reckon that giving submitters this advice is more important than working on new AfCs, especially if submitters ask for help. However, it must be said that giving this advice may be a tedious, time-consuming, yet fruitless process. AfC reviewers must learn to deal with this. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looking at some declined reviews from today (November 2): Draft:Yielziey: good decline -- no footnotes, mostly links to primary sources (e.g., Spotify) Draft:Assin Godstime: good decline, but weird comment to the editor: "Can we agree to accepting this, and subsequently to WP:AFD, if you think the reviewers aren't helping you". The page has been declined multiple times for failing NAUTHOR. It would likely be beneficial to have a more detailed explanation of what they must do to fix the article. Draft:Michae E Burns: good decline Draft:Party Bots: good decline Draft:Dubdee GD: declined, but I would have marked as reject and CSD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Can we agree to accepting this, and subsequently to WP:AFD is exactly what got SafariScribe in trouble a month and a half ago at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_Corbell_(2nd_nomination), which I linked above. I'm surprised to see SafariScribe still suggesting this weird process to appease AfC submitters, after being clearly told off for it. Toadspike [Talk] 20:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yup. It is a strategy that has come up several times over the last decade I've been doing this and has always got mostly negative feedback. I think there is possible merit in having a way submitters can ask for a full AfD consensus review rather than an AfC review, but it seems clear consensus is that AfC reviewers should not be suggesting this. KylieTastic (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think in most cases, the best process for this would likely be to inform the editor they can move the draft to the main space themselves, though it may be nominated for deletion. This applies to most editors. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Mary Robertson... I raised issue on this accept. Tried to discuss with this user but he never responded. I draftified the article ... they came back moved it on main space and and an IP from Italy started cleaning up. I am smelling UPE now. Hitro talk Hi @HitroMilanese:, sorry if I chime in, I just wanted to point out that I do not personally know Mary Robertson and I have most certainly not been asked (let alone paid) to write this page. Her Psychiatry at a Glance was one of my textbooks at university and I simply enjoy her work. Since she was a professor at UCL and an expert on Tourette, I assumed she met Wikipedia's notability criteria, but of course I might be wrong. I wrote the draft a few hours ago and was surprised to discover it had already been published when I checked half am hour ago, I thought it would take weeks. Since more sources were required, I simply addeded them.87.4.47.249 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] An emeritus prof at UCL is extremely likely to be notable. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Let us accept them because they are "An emeritus prof at UCL" and they are "extremely likely to be notable".... Hitro talk 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @HitroMilanese, that had already been draftified once. You can't draftify it a second time. Please move it back. If you think it should not exist, nominate it at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering Let me check the policies and guidelines once more. Hitro talk 01:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @HitroMilanese: See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I raised COI/UPE issue, I guess WP:DRAFTOBJECT does not apply to my case. Does it? Hitro talk 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just like a disputed PROD, there are no exceptions other than the standard exception for rolling back vandalism, which does not apply here. This should only go back to draft as the result of an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:DRAFTOBJECT does say excluding editors with a conflict of interest, but my interpretation is that it wouldn't apply here anyway. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Not unless Hiro wants to accuse SafariScribe of having a COI. Which, well, that wouldn't be my choice. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering Can you accept this draft in current condition? Hitro talk 01:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm not going to accept the draft. I'm asking you to revert your out-of-process draftification. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering You can revert it. [[WP:BOLD|Be Bold]]. Hitro talk 01:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure asilvering knows how to move pages. You are being encouraged to self-revert, which (as described at that link) is a way to show good faith after realizing that you've erred. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Jlwoodwa You concluded that I have erred. Does this draft belong to main space? Give me Yes or No answer. Hitro talk 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That is irrelevant. Where it does not belong, at present, is draftspace, and it should not have been returned there. If you think it does not belong in mainspace either, you may nominate it for AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That is what SafariScribe promotes. Deal at AfDs. Hitro talk 01:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] What SafariScribe did was "accept a draft and then immediately nominate it for deletion", which is discouraged because you should only accept drafts that you think belong in mainspace. What you should do is "revert your improper draftification", which does not mean you think it belongs in mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering You want me to revert? you want me to move this article at main space? Hitro talk 01:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @HitroMilanese: You should have never moved the page back to the draft space given WP:DRAFTOBJECT. As such, you should move it back to main space to recognize your error. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I am accepting my error. I may have erred. Should I move this draft to main space? Even in this condition? Yes or No will suffice. Hitro talk 02:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I did. But bad decision with your admin hat on. Hitro talk 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @HitroMilanese You broke the rules. Asilvering telling you to stop breaking the rules is hardly an unexpected outcome. Whatever happened to "Oh, sorry, I misunderstood when I could move something back to draftspace. I'll fix that, and open up a COI thread"? ...or we could play the "I'm a more experienced editor than you" card. Yeah, that'll help. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It wasn't like that at all. Mistakes happen. Are you saying you're not prone to making errors? Anyone can make mistakes. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Asilvering can respond to me directly, Hitro talk 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @GreenLipstickLesbian Can you reformulate what you were trying to say so that I may understand and respond to you properly? Hitro talk 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I very deliberately kept that hat off. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I feel you did not. Hitro talk 02:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering Technically, I don’t understand what you expect me to do. Do you want me to move this draft to back to the main space, even though I know it doesn’t belong there, especially considering that the reviewer is already under scrutiny? Hitro talk 01:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please see jlwoodwa's comment above. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Asilvering Responded already. Hitro talk 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If the editor has plausibly denied having a COI, then (unless WP:COIN finds otherwise) you should probably not assume that they have a COI. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Jlwoodwa The draft is waiting for review. Can you accept it in current condition? Hitro talk 01:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] No, HitroMilanese. Jlwoodwa should not accept the draft. You should move revert your inappropriate draftification. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Significa liberdade I did. I don't understand how it helps the project. Hitro talk 02:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] HitroMilanese: We have specific guidelines and policies for a reason. Sometimes, you may disagree with a policy, but that doesn't mean you don't have to abide by them. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I know and respect guidelines that is why I survived here on Wikipedia for 18 years. 14 years before you made your first edit. Hitro talk 02:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:DRAFTOBJECT Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] How did you land here? This was first time I discussing something here. I never pinged you. Hitro talk 01:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Apologies for being a PITA, but WP:DRAFTOBJECT is part of an essay and is not a policy or a guideline, no matter how some people treat it. Redraftifying an article is perfectly acceptable in some cases, e.g. when a terrible article on a notable subject is put into the mainspace again by the creator without making an effort to make even the most basic improvements. Please stop treating it is a policy or even a guideline. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It appears that I was coerced into moving the draft back to the main space by two inexperienced admins who were attempting to enforce an essay, mistakenly believing it to be policy or guideline. One of them called it an "out of process redraftification". @Asilvering that is why I said, "Bad decision with your admin hats on". Hitro talk 10:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Holy cow, can we chill with the accusations? I am not an admin, but it is clear to me that civility (which is a policy) has flown out the window here. Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I do not understand why you are pointing towards civility. However, I apologise if it came across as uncivil in any way. Hitro talk 10:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fram: Would you say redraftifying was an appropriate decision in the case at hand (Mary Robertson)? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Not for notability/sourcing/quality of writing, no (things could be improved of course, but clearly good enough for the mainspace). I have no opinion whether there was any evidence of COI, which might be a good enough reason to redraftify if so. Fram (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Page Mover Moving a Sandbox to Draft Space I have a question about AFCH reviewers who have the Page Mover privilege. If a reviewer is reviewing a user sandbox that has been tagged as submitted, standard procedure is to move the sandbox into draft space, with the appropriate title. My question is: Should the reviewer suppress redirect creation, or allow redirect creation? I became aware within the past 24 hours that different reviewers who have the page mover privilege have different practices. So, should the reviewer suppress redirect creation if they have the option (which is what Page Mover provides) to suppress redirect creation? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Notified: Wikipedia talk:Page mover. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Most commonly the move is within the draft space or from user sandbox/subpage to draft space, so I allow the redir. I mainly suppress it when moving a draft that is on the actual user page; in that case I untick all the option boxes (redir, talk page, subpages). I also suppress it when moving from the main space (or any other space from which redirs to drafts aren't allowed), but that's not what you were asking. That's what I do. Now someone will hopefully tell us what should be done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think a page mover should always default to leaving a redirect. I think a page mover can only suppress the redirect if it qualifies for a CSD. In DoubleGrazing's example above, they correctly mention that you can suppress mainspace to draftspace (during draftification) since that is CSD R2. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] When moving a draft from the actual user page to the draft space, if you don't suppress the redir it creates a mess. Anybody trying to then go to the user's user page ends up in the draft. (And the user talk page becomes the draft talk page, if you happen to move that along with the main page, which is what the default setting does.) That's why I only move the actual user page and don't allow the redir, and then manually move any WikiProject tags and other draft talk page content from the user's talk page to the draft talk page which I create. I then post a message on the user talk page telling them where I've moved the draft to, in case they can't otherwise work it out. I don't know if this strictly complies with the page mover rules, but I'd argue it's what works best in practice, in terms of subsequent operation of the user's resultant user and user talk pages. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don't think there is a standardised practice. My reading of policies when I first gotten the pagemover hat before becoming admin: WP:PMRC#9 allows suppression with appropriate CSD rationale. So page movers can suppress by applying CSD G7, author request rationale, since the redirect would have been created under their own usernames if not suppressed, although there is a question of WP:INVOLVED if someone wants to force the issue. Personally, I would suppress redirection if it is moving from the user's sandbox with an message be left on that editor's user talk page directing them to the draft space, because I have been pinged a couple of times before for AfDs for articles that were written over the redirect that were created in that editor's sandbox. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yup, I dislike that if you move a sandbox and leave a redirect then they use the sandbox for the next draft you are now the 'creator'. I stopped moving them years ago for this reason and still don't as a page mover due to what appears to be a grey area in the policy. Personally I think not leaving a redirect from a sandbox to avoid future confusions is best as long as long as you leave a message about the move, but I'll continue to refrain unless there is a consensus that WP:PMRC#9 + G7 is valid reasoning. KylieTastic (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:G7 says: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. So generally they aren't eligible for G7 and probably shouldn't be supressed. C F A 💬 15:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] nice catch. – robertsky (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] WP:PMRC does not really allow for redirect suppression when moving a sandbox (which is what Robert is asking about), and I don't think I've ever done it. I'm not really bothered by (or care about) whether I "created" a page then expanded and actually written by someone. Exceptions will always exist, but on the whole AFC reviewers should not be suppressing the creation of a redirect when they draftify a sandbox. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] You're right, that is the specific question Robert asked. My fault for taking this on a tangent. Specifically on that, I don't suppress the redir either, when moving from sandbox to draft:, although I do empathise with the point made about becoming the 'creator' of subsequent drafts from the sandbox. It is a bit annoying to receive notifications (AfD, pre-G13) for 'my' drafts which have nothing to do with me, because I (feel I) have to then go and notify the actual author myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] My practice is to leave a redirect unless a user: page at top level. If User:Foo contains an article about Bar, I move User:Foo to Draft:Bar, do not leave a redirect, but am careful to untick SUBPAGES and Talk page. I then tell User:Foo what I have done 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Increased Archival rate at Redirects creation The list of requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects is growing at an outstanding rate. While we all have done a job to never create a backlog there, the slow archival process has made it tough to go to the newer requests. I know that we can just use the End key, but is there a need to keep the requests for such a long time? I think the archival rate can be increased, changing it to 15 or 10 days. Thoughts? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The archive period is 7 days, based on Special:Diff/1253421658; I don't really think that should be shortened. We could maybe do something similar to WP:BOTREQ and speed up the archival process if {{AfC-c}} is used on a request, shortening it to maybe 3 days (i.e. "immediate archiving"). Rcsprinter123 would be the one to ask about implementing that sort of change, though. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] According to User talk:RscprinterBot#Task 8 frequency, it is on demand, I have posted a message about this there. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Figured I was missing something. On-demand is fine by me, but I do agree not letting it get to 200+ threads is ideal. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hi guys. The automatic threshold for a closed thread to be archived is 24 hours. I have been away during the week which is why threads built up on this occasion, but they are cleared with a single bot edit. Rcsprinter123 (discourse) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for that. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Submission Wrong venue 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi There! I Was Wondering Why @Theroadislong Declined My Submission On My First Article. Can You Explain Why? CharlieSimpson27112014 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please ask at the AFC help desk. This page is for discussion about the operation of the AFC process. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Better yet, ask Theroadislong on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I like the idea of a bot that can at least note the absence of material change to a resubmitted article. BD2412 T 21:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @BD2412: Let's say software detects that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted. What should it do? Message the submitter? Stick a template on the submission? Stick it on a list similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions#List:_Copyvios? Notify the previous reviewer? Something else? You can choose more than one option. Polygnotus (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Notify the submitter and put a note on the submission to the effect that the submission was previously rejected, and that the reasons for the previous rejection should be reviewed prior to acceptance of the submission. Creating a list of little-changed re-submissions is also not a bad idea. BD2412 T 14:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted? Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below. Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted? Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically reject decline any such submissions. Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios. Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission. Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission. Option 5: No. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc. Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] RFC discussion Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Propose Split Please join the discussion at Template talk:Improper AfC redirect or category request#Propose Split? regarding splitting that template. Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Phantom! Please will one of the more Sherlock Holmes folk amongst us find and sort out the phantom draft suggested to be in Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace by Category:Pending AfC submissions? The latter suggests that one is present. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I confirm I also see a phantom draft. qcne (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] From experience it is likely to be a stray hidden template related to AFC, or an AFC comment. It is unlikely to be particularly obvious. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Was hoping this meant a Phantom of the Opera themed AfC when I saw the section header on my watchlist :P CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sing, my angel of music... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think it is more like Ruddigore 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think counting pages in categories is expensive, so the counts aren't always recalculated every time they change. I think they can become inaccurate. I think a WP:NULLEDIT to one of the pages currently in the category might force a recalculation, although I am not 100% sure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I suspect it to be a real article causing the issue, potentially a user sandbox. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Tried the null edit. No difference, I'm afraid. Nor with a real edit prior to review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] This is a bug that has been around for a while, every now and then a category count goes wrong by 1 (or I've only ever seen if off by one). If you see this database query the count is set against the table not generated on demand. Looking at the code it appears that the category page that the purge calls the category refresh as long as the count is less than 5000. However, doing a purge does not fix the issue, so another bug somewhere. There does appear to be a maintenance function cleanupEmptyCategories.php that would fix. KylieTastic (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] ok not a bug in the refresh code but a problem with duff data. A query of category links returns page 78323717 at the moment, but page_id 78323717 is not in the pages table. So the purge/refresh counts the categorylinks which while this phantom record exists will always be +1. We can see the categorylink was updated 2024-11-09 T22:23:45, the page has no revisions in the 78323717 (so deleted), so I looked in archive (which I didn't realise we could see) and the page title was User:SeeznTvUZ/sandbox which was deleted by Rsjaffe 22:23, 9 November 2024. see this quarry for how I found this. So it's a bug in the way categorylinks are managed, maybe it was a race-condition, but one possible way to fix would be to undelete (assuming it keeps the old page_id) then do a purge or remove the AfC submission and then re-delete. KylieTastic (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Would someone with the necessary rights please try this? @KylieTastic Somehow I knew it would be you who got the drains up on this. Awesome job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, we had this issue with the copyvios (G12) category for a while, especially since it was deletion-prone. I couldn't for the life of me remember the cause, so thanks to Kylie. I'll take a look and see if I can sort out some un/re/deletions to clear things up. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Whiiiich is now Done. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters!!" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I got nerd sniped and spent a couple hours on this today. I couldn't reproduce this, but discovered there's an extension called mw:Extension:CategoryTree that is involved, and the code that generates the category counts is in the PHP back end of this extension. @KylieTastic, may want to consider filing a bug report and tagging it CategoryTree. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Had to look that one up as it was new to me. Why do you think that is involved as it appears to just be a viewer and has no way to effect the data stored in categorylinks as far as I can see? As the extension page says: "extension provides a dynamic view" like this for the Category:Pending AfC submissions sub cats. KylieTastic (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] If that extension is not installed, the category counts don't display. So that extension is involved and I'd recommend tagging it in the Phab ticket. As for where the root cause code is, the buggy SQL code / cache code / algorithm / DeferredUpdate / job could be located in either the extension or MediaWiki core, depending on if the extension calls some code in MediaWiki core or just uses its own code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Editors not qualified, but using AFC templates Please see Special:Contributions/ArifVlog782 where you will see at 0902UTC today they faux-accepted a draft using the AFC acceptance template. I have asked them on ther talk page about this. I have also asked the previous reviewer who declined the draft to check the "acceptance". That is beside the point. It should either be in mainspace or should not Is there a technical way of preventing (what I see as) abuse of these templates by non qualified editors. This one has only 167 edits in their edit log on this project 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Convenient link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DareshMohan&diff=prev&oldid=1256937209 Polygnotus (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The short answer is no. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Were we to wish for it, if this technically a reach too far, or is it technically possible without undue effort? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think it would be technically possible to use an edit filter to prevent this (at least for non-EC editors), though I haven't looked into the regex for it. C F A 💬 16:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The initial situation has led us to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DareshMohan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Now merged to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rydex64. Polygnotus (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Source Assessment Tables This isn't really about AFC, but about a process that AFC reviewers are often involved in, and that is the creation of source assessment tables that are used in AFD. I had created a source assessment table in an AFD, and another editor observed that I had created it by hand, and suggested that I use a template for the purpose. I replied that I only appeared to have created it by hand, because I use the Excel2Wiki tool [16], which converts a spreadsheet to a Wiki table. There are at least two ways to create a cleanly formatted source assessment table. I have been using the Excel conversion tool for years and will continue to do so, and other editors have been using templates for years and will continue to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware of this tool. ...and that now makes me wonder how many other great tools there are that I must be missing out on! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I did this one recently. I used Template:Source assess table generated using the associated script. However, you have to paste all the URLs from the article into the form that the script displays, or directly into the generated table as I did, which is time-consuming especially if there are a lot of sources. It would be great if someone could produce a v2 of the script that automatically extracts the URLs from the sources and pre-populates the table with metadata from each source and a hyperlink. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] There's also Template:ORGCRIT assess table for assessing against NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Generally I think it would be great if we used these more often, particularly on drafts that have been hanging around for weeks or months because they are in the 'too difficult' pile. These often have a lot of sources to assess, and it is inefficient for successive reviewers to go through all the sources when the earlier reviewers could ideally have marked the ones that definitely did not contribute to notability, and then we could build up the table as a team effort / relay, and focus on the sources that are borderline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, that would be a good idea. Someone could check particular types of source, like ones behind a paywall that they have access to. Others, non-English ones in a language they read. And so on. No one reviewer might want to check all the sources, but between a few of them they could cover the lot. Just (!) need to figure out a way to keep track of the citations so that when they change, the source table updates accordingly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Curb Safe Charmer: I have combining User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable with the Source assess table on my todolist. Polygnotus (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] ♥ Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I will note that the Excel to Wiki table is not specifically intended for use by reviewers, because it is meant for construction of tables for use in articles. Its use for assessing notability is a side benefit. For that reason, I have confidence that it has been thoroughly debugged. But any reviewer should be encouraged to use whatever tools they are familiar with. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Large Language Models I don't know about other AfC reviewers, but I've noticed an awful lot of drafts clearly written by ChatGPT or another LLM recently. I've declined every last one of them, as they always have other issues, usually with NPOV and sourcing, but I'm wondering if anyone else agrees it might be a good idea to have a specific "this article reads as though written by AI" as a specific decline reason? CoconutOctopus talk 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] There's been a lot of G11s in draftspace recently that have that look. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think I must have nominated about half of them! If it wasn't for them abusing Wikipedia I'd almost feel bad for how many people are clearly wasting their money on paid editors who just chuck a prompt into ChatGPT and call it a day... CoconutOctopus talk 21:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's an enormous timesink. They are not generating anything close to usable articles, far worse than the terrible English that they appear to have superceded, when at least one could generally tell whether or not the entity might conceivably be notable if rewritten. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Totally agree with this one. I am just using the "tone" reason and then "AI generated" in the comment box. qcne (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] "Custom" as decline reason. and a comment about LLM . Next! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That absolutely works, I'm just seeing this way more than I ever see an article that I'd decline as, say, a non-notable astronomical object, or a joke submission. Not a huge deal either way, but I thought it good to get the community's feedback in case it's not just me feeling this way. CoconutOctopus talk 21:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I also reject talk page comments (etc) that are from LLMs. Often they start "Thank you for reaching out" and I prove that I am a grumpy, intolerant old scrote. I do not AGF an LLM. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I was going to reply with a mock ChatGPT answer but it turns out even if I try I can't write quite badly enough for it to look fake. One thing we can all agree on is that they're a nuisance to the wiki and a complete waste of editor and reviewer time. I don't see it stopping any time soon though, sadly. CoconutOctopus talk 22:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps verbiage like "This draft appears to be partially written by text-generating AI like ChatGPT. Because of this, this draft contains promotional wording, unsourced claims, opinions presented as facts, and potential misrepresentation of sources. These are all problems common in text-generating AI so you should not simply copy and paste its outputs into Wikipedia articles or drafts. Please rewrite the draft in your own words and see the instruction page Wikipedia:Large language modelss."? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The advantage of a specific decline for AI is that we could just hit the button and not have to write or paste in a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] My thoughts exactly; it might not take that much time, but if something helps save the time of reviewers when it comes to dealing with low-effort slop then I'm all for it. CoconutOctopus talk 07:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. However, I think there should be some sort of warning to not decline drafts unless it is an extreme case of AI slop. For example, it took me only couple of minutes to take out the AI fluff in In Search of Bidesia. The editor was probably using it to copyedit, and AI being AI, it inserted whole lot of syncophant praise. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Like other pernicious activities such as copy pasting Google Translate, close paraphrasing, or creating hoaxes, it is probably quicker to delete LLM content than try to repair it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I've no strong feelings about this new decline reason (helpful? yes; needed? meh), but if it does appear, we shouldn't over-encourage its use. AFAIK using LLM isn't categorically banned, so declining every LLM-generated draft purely because it's LLM-generated seems excessive, and probably against policy (or if this is indeed now policy, can someone point me to it because I've clearly missed that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I don't think it's categorically banned, no. But a decline to have for the archetypal DraftGPT would be handy. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about - five-ish paragraphs, zero useful references, flattering tone with more adjectives than sense. -- asilvering (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yep. And for the slightly-less-obvious cases, it would be handy to have (eg. in the 'Reviewer tools') easy access to a detector of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Automated "detectors" are still quite unreliable. They have about 70~80% accuracy. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. We discussed the accuracy of AI detectors in phab:T330346 and the sentiment was they were not reliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] (non-reviewer comment) Human detectors are more accurate. Slightly less than obvious cases should probably be assessed on merits. Folly Mox (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] imo if it's not so obvious a "trained" human reviewer can spot immediately, we should be assuming good faith (which here means "not trying to fill wikipedia with crap LLM output" in addition to the usual "not out to destroy the encyclopedia"). -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just as a sanity check here (like... my sanity), the issue is that LLM drafts are promotional and/or improperly sourced, yes? If that's the case, why not just decline as NPOV and/or unsourced? If the fact it was made via LLM isn't the reason for the decline itself, why not just decline using what we have? Primefac (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It tells submitters that they should not trust LLM content blindly. They may have not checked the draft for NPOV or tone issues because they thought LLMs were infallible. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Agreeing with this. (I am also of the opinion that LLM generated articles should be outright banned, but I may not be in the majority there, and besides, it'd be a hell of a thing to try and enforce) CoconutOctopus talk 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm also on the stricter side than current consensus. Lazy editors who trust software too much without proofreading and correcting its output are likely to create more problems down the road if not firmly dissuaded, and we should be openly unwelcoming to that behaviour. Also it's deeply unfair to write a prompt for an automated process to compose an article, then ask a human to spend more effort reviewing it than you spent thinking about it. Folly Mox (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think a specific "we see what you did there, and we don't like it" is helpful in this particular case, for two main reasons. One, most people using LLMs, obviously, have no idea how bad they are at doing the thing they want them to do, and a specific decline message could tell them that. Two, we don't actually want someone to waste their time trying to clean up and find sources for their garbage DraftGPT, do we? Personally, I'd prefer they just started over. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For a laugh I asked Chat GPT: "Please create a warning for a wikipedia editor who uses a Large Language model to generate articles, making sure that the understand that it is not appropriate. Then create a second wring against using LLMs in wikipedia talk page responses and conversations" It replied: Warning 1 Using Large Language Models to Generate Wikipedia Articles Subject: Warning: Inappropriate Use of LLMs for Article Creation Hello, It has come to our attention that you have been using a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate Wikipedia articles. While LLMs can be helpful tools for research and drafting, their outputs often lack the rigor, neutrality, and verifiability required for Wikipedia content. As per Wikipedia’s content policies, all articles must adhere to: • Verifiability: Information must be supported by reliable, published sources. • Neutral Point of View (NPOV): Content must be unbiased and factual. • No Original Research: Contributions must be based on published information, not generated content. LLMs often produce content that: 1. Lacks verifiable sources. 2. Introduces subtle bias or inaccuracies. 3. Contains synthesized information that may not reflect reliable sources. This behavior undermines Wikipedia’s integrity and is considered inappropriate. If you continue using LLMs for article generation, further action may be taken, including editing restrictions or account sanctions. Please ensure your contributions are original, well-researched, and comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your cooperation. Warning 2 Using Large Language Models in Wikipedia Talk Page Responses Subject: Warning: Inappropriate Use of LLMs on Talk Pages Hello, It has been observed that you may be using a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate responses on Wikipedia talk pages. While LLMs are capable of producing coherent text, their use in discussions is discouraged because: 1. Lack of Accountability: Wikipedia is built on collaborative, human input, and responses from LLMs lack personal accountability and intentionality. 2. Potential for Inaccuracy: LLM-generated responses may include subtle inaccuracies or misinformation. 3. Disruption of Collaboration: Talk pages are intended for genuine human dialogue and decision-making about article content. Please refrain from using LLMs in talk page discussions. Instead, engage authentically with your own thoughts and words. If you need assistance in contributing effectively, refer to Wikipedia’s policies or seek help from experienced editors. Continued misuse of LLMs may result in restrictions on your account or contributions. Thank you for understanding the importance of maintaining human collaboration and integrity on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Warning 2 is a trainwreck, but warning 1 isn't half bad, honestly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] It was therefore "half worthwhile" 🤡 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For the record, I have found LLMs to be an extremely useful tool for taking a set of statements from sources and constructing them into a good start at a coherent and encyclopedic presentation of that content. Of course, content that is entirely generated by an LLM without using provided sources is going to be problematic, but we should not throw out the use of the tool as a tool in itself. BD2412 T 21:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] While I agree with the point that LLMs aren't banned and that "generated by LLM" by itself isn't a decline reason, it could be very handy to have a way to decline a draft for showing the problems usually associated with LLM content (promotional tone issues, generic speculative statements, "conclusion-like" paragraphs, essay-like wording trying to emphasize the subject's place in a broader context, etc.) These drafts are sadly way too typical to not have a specific decline reason. If the person used, say, ChatGPT, without knowing its limitations and what should be done to use AI-generated content constructively, then a generic "this article has tone issues" will be far less helpful than a "here is what you can do to improve raw LLM content". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Did you see that there's this template: Template:AI-generated? Any use? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Useful as a template especially when doing NPP, but I was thinking more of a decline reason (I'm loathe to put a template on a draft article as I'd like to think they wouldn't need any once published). CoconutOctopus talk 10:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Draft decline text (LLM) Working on a draft decline message, would be happy to have feedback on it!Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. While the use of large language models isn't disallowed, their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Generic, speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Furthermore, it is your responsibility to accurately verify LLM-generated content, as it will often contain hallucinations and fictious references. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looks good to me - I'd maybe have something in there saying to please rewrite in your own words, just in case it isn't clear enough that they should be doing that. CoconutOctopus talk 17:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Before the last line, we could add You should ideally rewrite the generated content in your own words to avoid these issues. maybe? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think that makes sense, yeah! Thanks very much for writing this up. CoconutOctopus talk 17:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just splitting this off into its own section for further discussion and possible approval/consensus. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I disagree. An encyclopedia demonstrates what is believed to be established knowledge; this requires finding, reading, assessing, and analysing sources prior to writing a Wikipedia article. Encouraging editors not to learn this principle is anything but useful to this project. Content generated by LLMs is mostly useless for Wikipedia because LLMs are not knowledgeable. They excel at composing text that is sufficiently convincing to the average ignorant person if that text does not require any sort of factual accuarcy. For Wikipedia, compelling but erroneous content is extremely dangerous. Telling someone, who has already demonstrated a failure to understand what Wikipedia is, to rewrite unsensible LLM text is hopefully ignored by that addressee. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just to clarify, this would be in conjunction to the final sentence that currently reads Furthermore, it is your responsibility to accurately verify LLM-generated content, as it will often contain hallucinations and fictious references. While it could be worded a bit more strongly, I believe this already tells editors that they should be verifying the factual accuracy of LLM-generated content, especially regarding sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Do we expect editors having to use LLMs to comprehend this? I'm drifting off course here, but I'm not sure whether you are aware that, to a certain group of people, using LLMs appears like a splendid way to circumvent the necessity to learn English. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That is indeed a pretty good point. Maybe we could replace these two sentences by:You should research and write content by yourself, and not trust what AI models write for you, as it is often made up. It is your responsibility to fully verify LLM-generated content that you introduce on Wikipedia, as it will often contain hallucinations and fictious references. I've tried to make the bolded part and its surroundings use less technical terms to be more accessible for potential LLM-using editors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Consider deleting "While the use of large language models isn't disallowed". Even if it isn't technically disallowed, I think this sentence plants a seed in editor's heads that LLM use is OK, and giving this advice to a new editor is probably not a good idea. Consider also deleting the last sentence, "Furthermore, it is your responsibility to accurately verify LLM-generated content, as it will often contain hallucinations and fictious references.", for the same reason. This makes it sound like it's OK to have LLMs write articles as long as you double check their output. Which is not good advice at all. The basis of new articles should be reading and summarizing reliable sources, not asking ChatGPT to hallucinate an article. Might as well add a new sentence to the end, too. Something like "Please address these issues. The best way to address these issues is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model.". So to summarize, I'd like to propose these modifications: Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Generic, speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Please address these issues. The best way to address these issues is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, that is indeed much better advice. Small detail, there is some repetition in Please address these issues. The best way to address these issues is.... Would The best way to do it is... work instead? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Feel free to put my version in a sandbox somewhere, link it here, and start modifying. I think we're at the point where folks being able to boldly edit the message and iterate on it would be helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I put it at the top of Template:AfC submission/comments/sandbox, and I'll put the transcluded version below. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I've added a line on non-existant references, since IMO it's a pretty major issue with LLM writing. CoconutOctopus talk 07:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For me the elephant in the room is copyright. Who owns the copyright of an LLM generated piece of text, (etc). 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I thought they were public domain? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That part is still being heavily debated by legal scholars, although for now LLM output is considered to be public domain. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] That is an interesting point you make. I reckon that we must think out of the box – do we know which legal system applies to content on Wikipedia? The principle of a copyright is something usually found in Angloamerican legal systems, while other legal systems may have other principles. In Germany, for example, copyright (Vervielfältigungsrecht) is part (a proper subset) of the creator's right (Urheberrecht). In the latter, it is defined that Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen, i.e., only works created by persons can be subjected to a creator's right, and, therefore, copyright can only exist if a work was created by a person. In other words, text created by an LLM may be deemed being below the threshold of originality, i.e., not "copyrightable" if the person who used the LLM is German. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I've reworded it a bit, as "hallucinated references" would be redundant with "non-existent references". The existence of hallucinations in the content (and not only the references) deserves a mention. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I would also note LLM's tendency to produce very vague claims without citing statistics or specific examples. I would also add a wikilink to the help page WP:Large language models. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] For your first point, that's what the "generic, speculative statements" point was about, although I invite you to reword it if you feel there's a better way to convey the idea. Agree with linking WP:LLM, I figure it can replace the article link at "large language model". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Current draft text Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Generic, speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations and non-existent references Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants. Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect, and you are most welcome to join in. Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc. Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational NewsRead this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Barbaralee Diamonstein-SpielvogelDid you read that article before accepting it? It's not even close to neutral. I sincerely hope you planned to copyedit or rewrite that after accepting. —fetch·comms 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yeah I am aware of the lack of neutrality. Thanks for prodding me though fetch! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No you're right it's horrible... what was I thinking feel free to trout me. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Barnstar!The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thanks for ally our help on ym userpage and for being a friendly talk page stalker! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]D Thanks I added the Barnstar to my Barnstars page, no worries glad to be of service! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 02:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Articles for CreationFirstly, welcome to the Wikiproject! A couple of your reviews have popped up on my watchlist, so I'll just give you a little info. You do realize that there is a set of parameters for that template, right? They produce very well-written messages for the submitters. So, my using h|spam there produced a message that was a lot more informative than h|spam/advertising, which you changed it to. If there is more than one reason why the submission is held or declined, use the most important parameter (usually h|v I find), and leave the rest of the information (with links to relevant guidelines!) in an {{afc comment|your comment here}} underneath the template. Also, things like formatting and headings and fixing URLs into {{cite web}} are done by the reviewer, and should not be the main reason for declining or holding something. All that said, it's great that you're joining us- we desperately do need more reviewers now. Just do keep referring back to the instructions until you're confident of what you're doing. (Also: I made an AFC topicon for myself, you can mod it for your own use if you like.) Cheers, sonia^♫♪ 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Right, will do. I'm still learning the ropes on this WikiProject so please don't be afraid to trout me when necesary. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]No probs. Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. If you ever need another pair of eyes to look at a submission, my talk page is always open. Regards, sonia^♫♪ 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Proposterous, you were just putting me on the right path :) Thanks Sonia. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] One of you just flashed up on Igloo so I thought I'd stick my nose in! There's an excellent script to assist in AfC reviewing (dig it out of my [HJ Mitchell] monobook.js). You can also pinch the template on the top of my talk page that gives yu the status and the number of submissions. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yeah I stole it :P Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]That script doesn't work for me... :( But I made myself a non-admin dashboard which I check back to, and added a little script to my JS that gives me a direct link to my dashboard next to the logout link, and it works well for me :) sonia^♫♪ 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have that script, but mine takes me to the admin dashboard to all the joyous backlogs that need mopping up! Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply](edit conflict)LOL, yeah now that you mention it Sonia I can't use the script either... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Phew, so it's not just me. (Are you getting tired of the orange bar yet? Here on enwiki I don't tend to, but I'm sure HJ does.) @HJ: This is kinda crazy, but sometimes I wish there were backlogs for me to clear. Over on simple IPs can create articles, and yet no test page lasts more than a minute before it's deleted. Most of the time by the time you hit edit to speedy it, it's already gone. It's a little bit annoying at times, actually, because the admins edit-conflict in deleting pages. Quite unlike here. :P sonia^♫♪ 00:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than an orange bar to annoy me :) Haha sounds fun at Simple Wiki. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... Delirium Tremens (band) wasn't ready to get accepted. It has the submitter's signature at the bottom, and would you look at the references! Some are to myspace or Wikipedia, and that's not acceptable. The external links needs to be cleaned up as well. Please, be careful when accepting submissions- they should be of a suitable standard. sonia^♫♪ 09:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] O.o I didn't see them there... I'm REALLLYYYY sorry Sonia :( I can't believe missed obvious mistakes >.> Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sorry to pile it on, but here's another few that you seem to have made errors on: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation – you identified this as a copyright violation, but did not indicate the source of the material. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SEED INITIATIVE – and again here. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Underwater predation – you declined this as lacking reliable sources. It would appear to have two very good ones. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel – I see that you realised your error in accepting the submission, but you then moved it back to the wrong location. You then missed that it was a clear copyright violation. EarwigBot's report is in the edit history, but even without that (I hadn't noticed it until afterwards) a simple Google search turns up a copy of the original material. I see that you have really been going to town on the AFC backlog, and I commend your enthusiasm, but please slow down and take a little more care, especially as (by your own acknowledgement) you are still learning the ropes. I've not checked all of your work over the past few hours, but I would highly recommend that you yourself have another look at the articles you've reviewed. If you are unsure if you made a correct decision, reopen the submission or place it on hold and leave a comment for other reviewers. Cheers, AJCham 11:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Got caught being an idiot again >.> Sorry, I didn't know that cvs had to be reported. I did do the other reviews right though at least. My enthusiasm and big mouth will be the death of me... Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 12:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I actually forgot to mention the one that most concerned me – Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Early Life. You declined as lacking reliable sources, which fair enough was true, but worse than that the page was a clear BLP violation, something that is taken very seriously; now more than ever. I'd also be curious to know a couple of things: First, an explanation of the decline reason you gave for Underwater predation as mentioned above. Second, how are you so sure that you reviewed all the others correctly? Your response to me came within 5 minutes – are you saying you double-checked all your contributions from the last several hours in that time? I've only looked over a handful of your reviews and found these 5, so I would reiterate my suggestion that you have another look at them. AJCham 12:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes some of the had lack of reputable sources. For example Brilliant Stars was submitted 18 hours or so ago in the mainspace, I moved it then I realisedthe sources used were the school's own website. Underwater predation, not in proper format, lack of reputable sources... oh wait it didn't even have hold time. You know what if I've made more mistakes please feel free to whale or trout me... Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No seriously, I'm asking for an explanation, not a restatement of the decline reason. Why did you feel that the sources for Underwater predation were unreliable? I genuinely would like to know – I'm not an expert on the subject so maybe you know something I don't. And just so you know (re: this), it didn't even occur to me that you may be making mistakes on purpose – I had no doubts that your intentions were pure, but I fear over-exuberance may have gotten the better of you. Just try to take things a little more slowly for now, and pick up the pace as and when you get used to things. AJCham 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it just wasn't sourced properly and it was lacking in information, Yeah you're right, hey I was wondering about my request, think you could teach me or help me improve my user page? Indeed, I should read thngs over more carefully, I do take into consideration what you say but most of the time, if it has no proper sources etc. or lacks information then I just decline if it has been on hold. Or if it is really bad no hold period at all. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well goodnight, I'll respond to your queries etc tomorrow. Oh and if you could, do you mind signing my Guestbook thanks, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 12:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Aside from reminding you that you're free to copy any elements from my userpage that you'd like to use, I can't really devote any time to helping you with yours. I would also recommend searching the web for CSS tutorials, as that should be a great help – and of course the Help pages here for advanced wiki-syntax. AJCham 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oh, and by the way, it is not necessary to notify me every time you reply. Now that we've engaged in ongoing discussion I am watching your talk page so I'm already aware of any responses. AJCham 12:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oh ok, just in case. Righto then thanks! Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talky

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Amorymeltzer's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Amorymeltzer's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page. Message added 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Delirium Tremens (band)Why did you 'accept' this, make it live, and then move it back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Delirium Tremens (band)? It has no header now, so it would not be reviewed again. Chzz ► 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sonia told me I had made a mistake, when I made it live I removed the afc tag, it's back now. I'll refrain from stupid mistakes for the moment. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SteelPathI have provided some cleanup here- could you please re-review and let me know whether you think it is ready for the mainspace? J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Alternate. Message added 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Your requests for rights at flaggedrevs and liquidthreadsWe give out the admin bit pretty liberally at both wikis, but the fact that you've requested 'crat as well gives me pause. Why would you need crat rights on a test wiki? Rights are given out to people who need them, not just because you can have them. I have given you (somewhat tentatively) administrator rights on both wikis. We've had a few people desysopped for just playing around, so do remember that both wikis are for testing of their functions, not for trying out admin buttons (especially not the block button). Cheers, sonia^♫♪ 04:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'd like to test out the interface differences between MediaWiki and Wikidot, since MediaWiki in my opinion is superior. But hey if you feel sysop is enough by all means. :D Cheers Sonia, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]How will being a crat help you do that? If you have a reason that will help with testing of LQT, by all means I'll flag you. Let me know. sonia^♫♪ 04:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well interface primarily, I'll do what I will as admin, scratch that request. I'll request when I have good reason for it rather than just the interface differences. Anyway cheers again, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 05:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Abuse_response/Nominate. Message added 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.TechEssentialsHey, thanks for your message, just to let you know I replied here. Mlpearc powwow 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]ProtectionHey there. I saw a request for protection of your user pages on WP:RFPP, but it wasn't signed. I tried to see if it was you that requested the protection, but since my laptop is, well, not the best, I couldn't track it down. Let me know if you still would like the semi protection of your user page. Jmlk17 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for your contributions to WikipediaHi Fridae, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. I hope that you continue to maintain your positive and willing attitude in helping improve WP. Regarding your Abuse Reponse project nomination, we have unfortunately had to decline your nomination. This is not because the quality of your contributions are lacking; on the contrary, you are an excellent contributor thus far. Investigating IP address is a very technically intensive task and I would suggest gaining more experience in this area, then re-apply. Thanks again. Thorncrag 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Mandy GonzalezI've spent loads of time fixing AFC things, so forgive me ranting - I know others have complained above. Another one just occurred, where a new user entered the help channel asking why Mandy Gonzalez was declined. It should not have been; it had sources to NY Times, Playbill, Broadway.com and BroadwayWorld.com. Please check over the other AFCs you may have done. I appreciate your acceptance of the feedback above, but please - save me more time - and check over them. Thank you. Chzz ► 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...and another. Another user complaining about how their submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bloginity Networks - "nothing was interesting" is not constructive feedback to new users. Chzz ► 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The article wasn't very informative. I didn't screw up all of them, I'm doing better the only problem was that a lot of the bloody articles used blogspot as a source. HOW ON EARTH is Blogspot verifiable and notable? Five articles were copyvios which I checked and I had subsequently reported the userbbs. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals Features and admins: The best of the week Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational NewsRead this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]KwikMed PageGreetings, Thanks so much for reviewing my page. I see there is a hold due to the references section but I am not sure how to correct the problem. How should I correct the problem? Thanks so much! JenSmith27 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)JenSmith27[reply] Hi again, If anyone is reading this and might be able to give me some feedback on my page so that it can be approved I would be very grateful. Not sure where Fridae's Doom is but I noticed it says I have 24 hours to make changes and I am quickly approaching that without a response. It says something about the references section and the page being jumbled but I have so far had no feed back that suggests how I may fix this.. Thanks!!! :) JenSmith27(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]AhemYour work at AFC has been less than helpful (from viewing the threads on your talk page above related to it). Especially here. No one quite really cares if you've heard of a subject. You might familiarize yourself with the reviewing instructions before you continue your work there. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Agreed. Your enthusiasm is commendable! But I think it would be appropriate to be a little more conservative with the "decline" button. Many of the articles you've declined look like reasonable article stubs and should probably not be rejected out of hand. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Village Siswala is not very notable, I mean an electrical engineer and a management student do not make it a notable place. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]When in doubt, hold. And remember that this isn't about us, it's about them- new contributors to Wikipedia in many cases. We have the responsibility to give them an acceptable and detailed reason why their article can't be accepted, and to work with them to improve it if it can at all be salvaged. Please remember that and tread carefully. sonia^♫♪ 01:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I was only following the article policies :/ perhaps I was being a bit too harsh. Village Siswala however definitely WAS NOT notable. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I agree that Siswala may not be notable, but it's not relevant whether you personally have heard of the village or anybody from it. That comment is a source of concern in the context of AfC.There are other declined articles for "lack of sources" that appear to be well sourced: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Al Agnew American naturalist painter - declined for lack of sources despite what appear to be several reliable independent sources Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Megan Rye - ditto Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Fiske Whitney Tim Pierce (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Some were changed after I declined them, in fact there were some articles that other reviewers declined that the authors had replaced the Pending AfC Tags on. I admit my mistakes but at least it wasn't as big a screw up as last time. They had sources like blogspot. About 80% of my decisions were correct at the time. So please also check the history log. But yes thanks all for telling me my mistakes. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]C EbnerHello, I'm trying to complete this post and have my article accepted, but obviously having problems with doing it correctly. I don't know if I am just inept at this, or if I'm not looking in the right places for help. The person I am submitting about is a well known author and journalist. I'm confused, can you help me with edits? Or is that not something you do? I would really like to get this published on Wikipedia ASAP, as I have been trying to get it done for quite some time. Thank you C Ebner (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)C Ebner[reply] I am new to Wiki - just submitted my first article Megan Rye - which was defined as sub quality. Being new to this process - I thought I had carefully done a lot of research. I am hard pressed to find anything that I wrote that wasn't verified in the independent press - on several occasions more than once. The only thing that might be "contentious" is the sentences talking about future exhibitions. If I remove this - I think everything else is extremely well sourced. Please let me know if I am overlooking anything else?? Thank you, rachelgregor2010@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelgregor (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello...Hi, Sorry to keep bugging you, I would just really like to get my article going and since you have put it on hold I have been trying to reach you to see what I can do to remedy the situation. I also have made revisions and still have not heard anything... Done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks so much FD :) Only one question, I looked over the rating system and noticed that for C class one of the main issues is unreliable sources, I have cited the Wall Street Journal, several .gov sites with official documents, USA today,a published study straight from the mayo clinic. I thought these were all pretty credible sources. Please let me know your thought on this as I would love to improve this as much as possible. Replied. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]New tool: ACHYou might be interested in a tool that I am making - WP:ACH. As of now, I'm still making it, but let me know if you want to test it. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at A930913's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.HastingsSee your DYK nom on Hastings. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Megan Rye articleHello - I wrote you a few days ago on your talk page. I am not trying to be difficult - rather this is the first wiki article I have written. Please specifically let me know which items were not verified by a third party source. I think ALL of my article has been sourced by reputable media. With the exception of two sentences regarding future exhibits. I asked you a few days ago - if these sentences regarding future exhibits are removed - will it then be acceptable? Again, I just need more feedback. Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello - I see your comments on my talk page. I am not sure why forumgallery.com isn't a reliable source.I was following the example of Wiki entry Marc Handelman - another artist, and the top external link for his entry is similarly the NYC gallery that represents his work.It would be easy to delete Guernicamag as a link.And in the body of my entry - Marya Hornbacher - has been a wiki entry for a long time - is this considered an internal link?Thank you, Rachelgregor (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]TroutedWhack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.You have been trouted because the button was closest by and was most fitting. Your actions here, IMO, were highly objectional. The article looks fine and should have been brought to AFD with your concerns. Formatting is not a criterion in AFC publication. Sincerely, Blurpeace 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]You've clearly had some trouble with article reviewing at AFC before (just based on the scroll up). Maybe you'd like to join us on IRC? Ping me (Blurpeace) if I'm online when you get on. Blurpeace 23:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can't get on IRC, yes but I don't see how Guernica Magazine and Forum Gallery were good sources. I'm being too harsh and too ignorant... often at the same time. IRC is blocked on my laptop by the NSW DET so I can only use it Friday-Sunday. Thank you all for dealing with me so long and for giving me an elongated first chance :) I appreciate it. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DirectHitYou declined an "Article for creation" for DirectHit because you said it was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" - in fact, it had many excellent sources, such as The Lancet and many other scholarly publications; just because the author has not formatted things quite correctly is not a good decline reason. Please could you check other submissions that you declined; if we can salvage these articles - ie if they are not 'speedy deletion' type material - then it is worth trying to fix them, or at least asking the originator to fix them, rather than declining. Thanks, Chzz ► 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Right gotcha, well in most cases the starter of the articles hadn't had activity beyond creation of the articles, in a few instances I had to report one to UAA because they made an article about themselves in AfC which I failed to catch when I put it on hold. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I saw the UAA, but I did not understand that either; you reported Ranjani Shettar (talk · contribs), who does not exist - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ranjani Shettar was written by Talwar108 (talk · contribs). Chzz ► 03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Erh.... this isn't the first time I made a mistake like this... I need better glasses, I miss this and that and then this goes missing that gets moved augh I'll refrain from AfCs until I can get this all sorted out. Remember if you need to click the trout at the top. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello! Your submission of DirectHit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Pgallert (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hi Fridae'sDoom, thanks for improving this article. There are further comments from me and others that need to be addressed, see Did You Know nominations page. On a personal note, such a large and importunate "stop" sign for people editing your talk page might give the impression that you do not want to communicate. --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please sign... LOL then I wouldn't have this many messages. Ok. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hi Fridae'sDoom, I see you have replaced the scientific hocus-pocus with a statement that is easier readable. Unfortunately that's now not a reliable source and will be rejected at DYK -- press releases are generally not well received. My "Requesting second opinion" has unfortunately been ignored at DYK. Could you maybe put both sources (the gibberish and the press release) to the DYK hook statement and ask at WP:MEDICINE if someone would be willing to check the hook? --Pgallert (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok done. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WW2History.comA decline reason needs to give the new user feedback, on the problems with their article and either a) how they can fix it, or b) why it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. In this one, for example, you put "Per hold >24 hours" - the new user has only made one edit, and probably has not been back yet, so far; when they get back, that message would be no use to them. I changed that one to 'web'. Chzz ► 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/US Universities Debating Championships is similar, see this edit. Chzz ► 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aberdeen Student ShowIn the hold reason, you put "Same source used three times". Please, look at any (probably every) featured article, where the same sources are used many, many times. Chzz ► 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DirectHitI've moved this into a DYK prep queue, but before it goes on the main page you need to properly format those first 5 refs, which are currently bare URLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]See response on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Recent thoughtsHello Fridae'sDoom, You have been the subject of criticism based upon some of your recent actions. While I agree it is warranted, I preface any comments with the pronouncement that it is offered with the earnest hope that it will allow you to improve your-own efforts on Wikipedia. Much of what I might have said has already been said by others, whereas it is just as valid having been said by them. What is left for me to say is I think your intentions are completely honorable. If anything your zeal, which is otherwise a good attribute, is bordering upon over zealousness. From that perspective, a good intention can produce an unintended result. The first thing you should ensure is that you are accurate in your own counsel. These new users are depending on the information you provide, and when you assume the roll of an adviser, it is incumbent on you to have learned that which you intend to teach. One of the best ways to progress is to ask questions. If you think perhaps a source is unreliable, ask a member of the community for an opinion. By doing this you will become more proficient yourself and be that much less likely to con-volute a policy or guideline. For example you speak of "notable sources". Notability is a criteria the subject of an article must meet. Sources need only be reputable and free from editorial influence by the subject. Some facts are perfectly permissible coming from a primary source as well. So, I imagine we can move forward with that, and I look forward to seeing your future interactions. Happy editing. My76Strat 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Understood, in regards to my over zealousness I've stopped that, I'll give them websites to use but in doing that I shouldn't put articles on hold or decline them if they don't have very reliable, verifiable and notable third-party sources. I check the sources I put the first paragraph into Google search, if it returns as a copyvio (if the text is mostly bolded) I'll blank the article. I'm not doing anything wrong per se, just being too harsh in not giving the new guys some help. Right, not too zealous or harsh... but being overly nice is just flamboyant and pretentious. Right, thanks. If I can I'll join your IRC channel so that I can get help. Thanks again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK for J. Woodland Hastings

On 24 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Woodland Hastings, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for DirectHit

On 25 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article DirectHit, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block at my SchoolYour request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Collateral damage of IP blocks on legitimate users like you and (I am willing to assume) your friend happens. Let's hope it doesn't happen again, at least any time soon! Request handled by: - Vianello (Talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.All righty. I inferred from your last message that you're up and running again. If it turns out I've misunderstood, please just give me a ring (or post an unblock request if necessary!). If I hear nothing further, I'll assume all's well. Best of luck! - Vianello (Talk) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]IP block exemptI have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in. Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator. Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires). I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. - Vianello (Talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Cardiff School of Art & DesignYou declined this [17] despite the fact that the user had added reliable sources (as requested) with this edit. It seems fine as a start-off article, to me, and I accepted it. Chzz ► 13:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Right, sorry about that I really need to join your IRC channel. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek Features and admins: The best of the week Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational NewsRead this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]SignatureHi Fridae'sDoom, I noticed that your signature (eg. here) links to a User:FD, even though you're logged in as User:Fridae'sDoom. While redirects of course work, I think it would be less misleading if you'd change it to point here directly. After all, it's not obvious that the two accounts are the same before one actually clicks on the link. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's to shorten my signature length in case I want to add more markup. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]And here you go!My motto to live by on Wikipedia...Don't shut the door too quickly. Today's motto: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. November 15's motto of the day: (See another) Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November 15, 2024Thanks :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]HelloI've got about 6 tabs open in FF to try to help. My question is. What do you want done on the userpage? What is it that you need help with? I'm gone from 20:00 UTC today to August 15 about the same time. I can help out until about 18:00 today. Mr. R00t ^Talk 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]GANI have reviewed Shanghai here; I note you have no proper experience writing the page, and the same with George Washington. While that isn't required for a nomination, it is helpful to have some idea at the content, and for that matter to look at the good article criteria. The article on Shanghai is completely not up to spec, and shouldn't be allowed near DYK let alone GAN. Could you make sure to ensure that a) you can competently fix any problems that come up and b) that the article isn't a bombsite before nominating articles in future? Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Right, in line with your failure to even respond to my message (let alone actually correct the article you wasted my time on by nominating) I'm going to quickfail it in the next 24 hours. Do let me know if you decide to actually follow up on the responsibilities you voluntarily took over. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I unfortunately have limited access to the net right now since my dad is switching our landlines so I can only use my brother's net, I apologise if I wasted your time since that was unintentional, I should have requested peer review and so I take full responsibility for stupidity on my part. Apologies again. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]