User talk:Glades12

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives

pages with no proper references

Chozhia Vellalar and Saiva Vellalar Pages like this are short and don't have proper references are they supposed to be on Wikipedia Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamallarnarashimavarman: I don't know this exactly, but my impression is that such articles are allowed to exist (especially if they were not created recently), but a short length and lack of references can bring notability into question, which frequently leads to deletion or merging nonetheless. Any article that clearly demonstrates why its subject is worthy of inclusion is "supposed" to be on Wikipedia. I hope this response was useful. Geolodus (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apple RGB should not be redirected to RGB color space

Hi Geolodus, I've recently tried to remove redirection of Apple RGB to RGB color space and you have removed my edit, thinking it was a test. It wasn't a test - I believe this redirection is incorrect. Apple RGB refers to a specific color space, like Adobe RGB color space does. Apple RGB is missing a specific page at the moment, but that's not a reason why we should redirect it to RGB color space. There is very little information about Apple RGB on RGB color space page.

The redirection should be removed and Apple RGB page should be declared missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.160.121 (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the matter here then, rather than making unexplained changes that lack consensus. Geolodus (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See You Again (song) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect See You Again (song). Since you had some involvement with the See You Again (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Newslinger talk 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coal truck & coal trucks

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Coal truck & coal trucks Peter Horn User talk 13:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24#Coal trucks. Peter Horn User talk 14:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I will add the template. Geolodus (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Synthesis

Just so you know, I've had more than one redirect deleted for that very reason without any resistance. There's no good reason for it not to be deleted: typing "Recessive Lethal" into Wikipedia search takes you to Lethal allele the same way "Recessive lethal" does, despite it not existing. It's an implausible typo/synonym as well, so it has more than one reason to be deleted. It also has no articles linking to it, unlike Protein synthesis. SUM1 (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are valid reasons for deleting redirects. Also see Wikipedia:other stuff exists; merely having happened before is not a justification for something to happen again. Geolodus (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are. Implausible typo is literally a criterion. I'd like to see you name an example where someone would link to Protein Synthesis over protein synthesis. The only one I can think of is a hypothetical International Organisation of Protein Synthesis or something. And that Wikipedia:other stuff exists essay could be used to argue away anything. It's meaningless when rules exist and past examples of their enforcement are because of the rules existing. But forget it. SUM1 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion only applies if the error is implausible. Alternative capitalisations aren't implausible; someone could paste them in from the title of an article in a journal, or search in those capitalisations after mistaking them for proper names in speech. The essay can't argue away anything. It explains why simply going from precedents (as you have done here) is not always the best thing to do. Again, the rules you cite are against redirects from implausible typos, not all of them. Glades12 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Blizzard of Souls, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I did not create the page; Turaids did. Glades12 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glades12, The message above is not about creation of the page but removing the CSD tag - See HERE. Only Admin could remove the tag if their find the CSD is not warrant. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that an admin has removed the tag. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think so. Neither WP:CSD nor any of its associated templates specifically prohibit anyone but page authors from removing CSD tags. Could you find and quote the place where you learned that only admins can? Glades12 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the above is for the creator and you are not. 17:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting you revert CSD removals for the two redirects

@Glades12:

Respectfully, I disagree that adding a single citation to a previous diff counts as anything other a minor edit, particularly since the subject of the then article failed our notability guidelines. Moreover, these redirects were created by the sockpuppet accounts, not the master account; thus, my understanding is CSD applies regardless.

No one is going to miss these redirects and will save them staying at RfD for a week.

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 14:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention the act of turning the articles into redirects by a non-sockpuppet, which I consider to be the main thing that exempts them from G5, or at least turns this into an ambiguous case where speedy deletion is not a good option. (Excuse me for being unclear previously.) If you can convince me otherwise, I'll add back the tags. Glades12 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glades12, I used Twinkle. Twinkle only lets you insert one user's account name. I did, the account is User:VivaSlava. It was confirmed as the sockpuppet account in 2018 as belonging to User:Charles lindberg. Charles lindberg, in turn, was blocked in June 2017, before these redirects were created. I would call this a borderline case of a G5 on the premise that the sockpuppet account, VivaSlava, was not yet found out/confirmed but Charles lindberg had an active SPI investigation opened and, indeed, was blocked before they were created. Nevertheless, these will fail RfD; I see no reason to hanging on to this crud for a week. Doug Mehus T·C 17:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: You seem to be misunderstanding me. I do not doubt that the creator of the page was a sockpuppet, but the redirector of it was Kvng, who is not. Wikipedia:G5 states that it does not apply to pages substantially edited by others than the creator, and turning an article into a redirect probably counts as a substantial edit. Also, I understand wanting to skip the RFD process, but it is possible that a reason for the redirs to be kept or retargeted will come to light (e.g. someone finding sources extensively covering the persons). Granted, I doubt that and currently see no reason for keeping. Glades12 (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glades12, Yeah, I wouldn't count a redirect as being a substantial edit. I guess that's where we only disagree there. Apologies for the confusion. I'm okay with seeing this through to deletion, but at the same time, I don't see any point in keeping it as there are no plausible targets to which to retarget it. Doug Mehus T·C 18:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

For your diligence at Adam Griffith (American football) (disambiguation) and comments at RfD, which were instructive for me in considering which speedy deletion tag(s) to apply first (i.e., not necessarily G14). Had I tagged it as G6 first, you may not have declined it. Doug Mehus T·C 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm

Hello! I saw that you created the talk page in the redirect. I've added better sources on the subject at the talk page of Stockholm.