User talk:The Wordsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:41, 4 January 2024

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

BATHROBES

FOREVER

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 2 months and 12 days.

Contentious Topics awareness templates

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm glad it is over.

I'm referring to your closure comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn Zech. You stated that "the allegations of cheating/abuse should not be included" and noted that the policies WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPPUBLIC are relevant, while noting that "all the sources are citing the now-deleted claims published on Zech's social media", and saying that Daily Dot is questionable on its own, and saying the same for Popculture, while noting that The Girlfriend Magazine article is unreliable, as is Distractify and The Daily Planet. I obviously, as you know from the discussion, supported keeping the accusations/allegations, and different views of the sources.

However, like any good Wikipedian, I'll abide by the consensus. I can understand that the "sources should be excluded" and actually think your view that "for matters of sexual orientation and gender identity, we typically allow self-identification through social media or interviews" is good, as it could help verify sexual orientation and gender identity more easily, so that's a positive. All in all, although the discussion didn't end the way I would have preferred, I think something can surely be learned from the discussion by all of those who participated. As for me, I'll probably be more wary of adding anything deemed "controversial" in the future, in hopes of avoiding future discussions. Also, thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Bob Morley, where I proposed some compromise text, but there was sadly no consensus for it. Historyday01 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for remaining civil throughout that discussion. In general the rule for BLPs is that we keep controversial material, especially negative, out of articles until the sourcing is strong enough. In cases where the sourcing is marginal, it is usually better to keep controversial claims (especially based on gossip or self-published claims) out until there is stronger sourcing. Even while the contentious text is being discussed, we need to keep it out until there is consensus to include (a reversal of the way things normally work). It can definitely be confusing at times, but it does seem like you were participating in good faith. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll definitely keep that mind. I tend to edit biography pages less than other pages, but I still edit them, and create them, from time to time. Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss American Beauty 1963

This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOQUORUM, If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz had noted it was not eligible for soft deletion. Liz, do you have some thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by requesting undeletion. Jay 💬 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and UtherSRG I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that WP:NOQUORUM considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete. Jay 💬 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, after I requested Wordsmith for relisting, he obliged within 24 hours, and now the AfD is in a position for a possible "hard" delete having received additional delete votes. Jay 💬 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at WT:DELPRO#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving "Resisting AI"

Hi Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's Fifty Years of Freedom. WP:BOOKS also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United States-Country relations articles

Hello, The Wordsmith,

I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan

Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work.

If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Wikipedia editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to Filmfare Awards then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him.

Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3

I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith Any comments on this? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any sort of external relationship could cause a conflict of interest even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.

Anything about the current Tag on Rizwan Sajan ? @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

Nyttend

Bureaucrat changes

Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe

Oversight changes

GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Sent by ~~~~

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 :::@[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] Any comments on this? [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 ::::Any sort of external relationship could cause a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.
+:::::Anything about the current Tag on [[Rizwan Sajan]] ? @[[User:The Wordsmith|The Wordsmith]] [[User:IVickyChoudhary|iVickyChoudhary]] ([[User talk:IVickyChoudhary|talk]]) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 == Administrators' newsletter – January 2024 ==