User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi SmokeyJoe, since you're a regular commentator on DRV discussions, I thought I'd run this by you. Based on the discussion contained therein, do you think the above-linked AFD could make a good candidate for a DRV discussion? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nearly Headless Nick.
- I've looked. I think this would have no chance of being a worthwhile effort filing at DRV. I would expect it to be SNOW endorsed, that discussion could not have been closed any other way. DRV does not care for the facts of the arguments, given that the deletion arguments failed to persuade a number of other experienced Wikipedians. My standard pointer for any complaint over an AfD "keep" result is WP:RENOM. However, I think that is a stretch in this case, I do not see Wikipedians ever agreeing to delete a dead general on a losing side.
- I do have strong sympathy for your position. You are completely right that the general does not meet the WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The error you have made is that failing to meet notability requirements does not mandate deletion if there is a merge target. For this general, I am sure that there should be a merge target. This person was part of history, and so should be covered on Wikipedia, just not necessarily with their own page.
- There is no doubt that someone existed under this name. There are very reliable primary sources on his existence. It fails WP:STUB as a biography. I presume that he is dead. If this were a BLP, it would definitely fail. The lack of birth and death information, family information, or commentary on his actions or influences, means that there is no biography to write.
- I think generals like this could be merged into Khmer Republic. Unfortunately, that may not be easy. I think that simply due to being on the losing side in 1975, there may be next to no surviving sources. This is regrettably, but in the hope that sources will be discovered, I have no problem with having permastubs like this survive indefinitely, as long as what information there is is reliably sourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your response, SmokeyJoe. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't for a moment disagree that the author is a self-promoting troll - you'll note that I have already blocked them. However, the content of this draft does not meet WP:G11. From that criterion: Any article [I take this to include draft articles] that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. Please point me to the non-neutral content in that draft and I will happily remove it under G11; however as I read it, the language used is not promotional even if the intent is. Our CSD criteria are specific; otherwise, I would be able to delete a hell of a lot more paid editing content than I can at the moment. Yunshui 雲水 14:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Yunshui, I don’t think you have yet commented at
Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product. There, as in other similar discussions on expanding reasons for deletion, the proposals to expand deletion reasons are halted by the notion that promotion is sufficient reason. New CSD criteria are rejected as seeking to delete things deleteable per G11. I think you are being too cautious, and you can G11 a hell of a lot more paid editor product. G11 doesn’t require non-neutral. This publishing of his hobby on Wikipedia is neutral, as if it is notable, but it is straight promotion. The other argument I have been making is that when the content is completely unsourced, that means it is completely un-reusable, unable to be rewritten better. I’ve been G11-tagging these sorts of things for some time, and encouraging others to do similarly, so I am interested in your opinion, on pages like this draft (kid vanity) and on UPE product as posted at WT:DEL. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per the bit of G11 that I quoted above, I'm afraid I disagree with you there: G11 absolutely does require non-neutral content. I wish it didn't, but it does. I gave up commenting on discussions about making paid editing a deletion reason a while back, for the same reason that I've given up commenting on discussions about an outright ban on paid editing; there are too many opinions, and consequently the perfect is all to often allowed to become the enemy of the good. I just find it depressing watching the discussion get derailed over and over again. For what it's worth, I usually see you making very competent suggestions in those venues, and I thank you for that; it is a shame that the community cannot get its collective act together and act decisively on paid editing. Yunshui 雲水 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Speedy deletions in general exist as a device for an administrator to bypass the standard consensus procedures and delete unilaterally when the result is a foregone conclusion. Pretty much any deletion can invite criticism from anyone, since only administrators can get the page back; so a speedy delete has to adhere exactly to what has already been agreed. It may be that the draft is deleted per WP:SNOW in a day or two, but then whoever deletes it will still be able to back up their actions with policy. So the problem is not really deleting per se as being able to defend yourself when somebody drops a "why did u delete my article" message on your talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your positions. I think I do know the purpose of speedy deletions. I think you are falling a little on the conservative side of the G11 line. I think RHaworth falls on the liberal side. This is useful in mapping the boundaries. I may argue in future that this draft should have been accepted as a G11. I argue that touching G3 and G5 should make G11 more easily accepted, just as I argue that PAID should be G11 more readily accepted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Speedy deletions in general exist as a device for an administrator to bypass the standard consensus procedures and delete unilaterally when the result is a foregone conclusion. Pretty much any deletion can invite criticism from anyone, since only administrators can get the page back; so a speedy delete has to adhere exactly to what has already been agreed. It may be that the draft is deleted per WP:SNOW in a day or two, but then whoever deletes it will still be able to back up their actions with policy. So the problem is not really deleting per se as being able to defend yourself when somebody drops a "why did u delete my article" message on your talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Per the bit of G11 that I quoted above, I'm afraid I disagree with you there: G11 absolutely does require non-neutral content. I wish it didn't, but it does. I gave up commenting on discussions about making paid editing a deletion reason a while back, for the same reason that I've given up commenting on discussions about an outright ban on paid editing; there are too many opinions, and consequently the perfect is all to often allowed to become the enemy of the good. I just find it depressing watching the discussion get derailed over and over again. For what it's worth, I usually see you making very competent suggestions in those venues, and I thank you for that; it is a shame that the community cannot get its collective act together and act decisively on paid editing. Yunshui 雲水 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you...
but you forgot to sign your vote. Remagoxer (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Clarification please...
Clarification please, how should I interpret this comment you left on User talk:Spartaz?
- I know I am fallible, so I do my best to really understand and fairly evaluate the arguments and counter-arguments from people I disagree with. Sometimes they convince me. If they convince me, I say so.
- I do my best to understand what the people I disagree with really meant, because everyone, occasionally, makes mistakes, uses the wrong homonym, leaves out a key phrase, or are so tired their comment includes a couple of sentences that look like gibberish. People with dyslexia, or who learned English as a second language, are more apt to have made valid points, that they expressed poorly. I am here to improve the wikipedia, not "win" arguments. Even people who expressed their points poorly can be correct, after all.
- So, did you leave your comment after reading my comments, and making a meaningful evaluation of whether or not I made any good points?
When I first started here, I had a couple of really excellent interactions with a couple of contributors with whom I had serious points of disagreement. There was this one guy who was fair and civil when we disagreed on editorial issues. And there were at least a half dozen occasions when I left him a heads-up, on his user talk page, when new references showed me he had been right and I had been wrong. He did likewise. I enjoyed interacting with him, because our civil disagreements made both our contributions better.
SmokeyJoe, I don't know you. I don't remember ever interacting with you before. But you can count on me always making the effort to understand the points you are trying to make. I will always do my best to keep in mind the possibility that I might be wrong, and you might be right. If you change my mind, I'll say so.
So, is there any chance you could leave a substantive comment on my comments?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Geo Swan. You don't know me? I've been following you for many many years, I quite admire you. I remember being impressed by this essay when you wrote it.
- I think you have occasionally got into disputes, but I didn't follow them. You occasionally are active in project-space, which is where I see you, and I have been impressed by your posts, sometimes very insightful, always worth reading.
- On this occasion, I think you are simply pushing too hard too quickly. The page has been deleted at AfD. There is, and has to be, some finality to that, final at least for some time. As I have documented at WP:RENOM, most people are happy that a consensus decision should not be re-litigated in less than six months. You are breaking that.
- You post on Spartaz's page makes a number of valid points. In a debate where valid points are scored equally, you would surely win. However, you have gone into WP:TL;DR. A simple fact is that the page was deleted at AfD, and DRV upholds the deletion. At this point, if you can't make an equally strong counter point while using the same number of words, others do not want to engage. In my opinion, the only compelling strong point would be one that points to new high quality sources. WP:THREE in particular. I'm afraid that I don't think your TL;DR post to Spartz deserves a substantive reply, not for six months, and not until you are speaking to new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved your comment
I boldly moved your !vote for a 6 month moratorium at Talk:Chairperson to the section on the moratorium and then archived the ongoing discussion of a now-closed RM in which you original made that !vote. Hope that's okay. --В²C ☎ 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello SmokeyJoe,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, SmokeyJoe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Improvement of current article
Hi SmokeyJoe, following your advice on my draft I have added Rice Powell to the main article about Fresenius Medical Care. I hope my editing meets your expectations and the changes are ok. Thanks for your support! --Stefanie at FMC CorpCom (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please also note that I have worked on improving the Fresenius Medical Care main article today. You can also find my completely revised draft article for Rice Powell in my sandbox for review. Any feedback from you would be much appreciated! Thank you. --Stefanie at FMC CorpCom (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Title minimization
While policy is generally that we don't redirect a base name to a qualified one, there are times where a longer title might be desired even if less concise. We moved Mull back to Isle of Mull. I'd mirror you're frequent comment (such as here) about how sources introduce the topic. As you can see I pointed this out here and you're comment back in 2011 about this. Interestingly a few months ago someone who was travelling up there asked me if just "Mull" would work for finding the island on Google Maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
September 11 Portal
You wrote: "Portals don't work as intended. Archiving instead would have been better." What are you saying should have been done with archiving? If you mean that the portal should be archived, then perhaps you can say that in the MFD, or explain how to archive a portal. I agree that portals don't work as intended, for reasons that I have explained at length and that you have stated more briefly, but do you mean that archiving is an alternative to deletion, or an alternative to portals, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am not happy that so much history of good faith work is being deleted. Old things that are no longer wanted should be archived. It’s a pity that my suggestion for mass archiving of Portals was not agreed to, and the community has had to resort to deletion to make their decision clear and enforced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello SmokeyJoe,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Primary topics and disambiguation
SmokeyJoe, I thought I'd take this offline, because I genuinely want to understand how you view the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. When there is an ambiguous term such as Batman, are you fundamentally opposed to that link going directly to the Batman comic book character article? Is it your preference that it should instead direct to Batman (disambiguation)? Your disgust with hatnotes seems to indicate that this would in fact be your preference. It would also go a long way in explaining your position, because if you support the primary topic guideline, then I'm not sure how you can be opposed to hatnotes in general, since they're a crucial part of that concept. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
AfD Draft:Jane Ogbuigwe
Your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jane Ogbuigwe were appropriate. Apologies, lack of sleep too generous a slug of warming spirits and the last edit of the day tends to subdue the critical faculties. The comment was neither required nor justified. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit glitch
This seems to be a glitch. I get them from time to time too. Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I removed it. Please feel encouraged to fix my glitches and other small mistakes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| You're awesome, and I love the way that you are willing not only to search for additional information and let it change your mind, but also to say so in public. I hope that more of us will have the courage to follow your example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
Reverting a relist
I'm baffled by this edit of yours, where you reverted my relisting of an MfD, apparently because I didn't provide a comment to go along with the relisting? Relists don't require comments in most cases, they are self-explanatory. Care to explain? ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 02:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- MfD doesn’t require relisting as a routine action for generating new comments. It doesn’t even work. All you are doing is shuffling the MfD list and adding clutter to the conversation.
- Old overdue included discussion are highlighted as such in a few placed. Your relist serves to remove the discussion from that group, making it look fresh, therefore your relist is actually counterproductive. If it is not ready to close, leave it, and it will attract attention simply for being old. Some people, including me, routinely work the tail end of aged XfDs.
- On the other hand, if as a potential closer you have a useful comment, such as an attempt to refocus discussion, or to draw attention of early participants to a later comment, then that is a very good reason to relist, with a relisting comment.
- Thanks for closing MfD discussions though. We don’t see very many different people participating there.
- —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Roy Johnston (artist)
Hello, SmokeyJoe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Roy Johnston".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
HOT is NOT OSM
Hi Joe, please let me insist on separating HOT from OSM. The two things are different, and Wikipedia associating HOT straight into OSM is a cause of confusion for OSM contributors. I am aware that the page was just a stub, the way I had put it, but it was a meaningful stub. The Humanitarian Openstreetmap Team USA Inc. does not represent all the Humanitarian mapping being done on and with Openstreetmap, it an organization by its own, and I think it does deserve its own page, and from there, link to OSM, but not redirect. You see that you removed the information I had put into the new page, since it obviously does not have a place in the OSM page. Mfrasca (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Mfrasca. If I’m guessing correctly what you are talking about, your page had zero independent sources that commented on the topic, and I redirected to the sole page to which your page had any relevance.
- It is an organization of its own? Have you read WP:ORG? Wikipedia is not particularly amenable to organizations having their own pages in the absence of secondary sources covering them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I've checked the Dutch, Italian, and Spanish versions of the page WP:ORG and in my opinion the HOT does match the criteria. I get lost in the English version, I'm sorry. We need secondary sources, talking about HOT? Is that what we miss? Maybe the point is precisely this: HOT Inc. does their best to get confused with OSM, their name "HOT" makes text searches very difficult, where most matches are false positives. Do the following sources qualify as secondary source?
- https://reliefweb.int/report/world/community-qa-humanitarian-openstreetmap-team
- https://www.guidestar.org/profile/27-3166713
- Mfrasca (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again. HOT is a USA company, while OSM is a UK company. Also not sufficient for keeping them apart? Mfrasca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- check for comparison Missing Maps. Mfrasca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello SmokeyJoe,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping kiddle back in January
Remember my article? Thanks for voting keep in January. It now gets 176 views on average a day. --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC) \
G11
Yes, I do not think an article containing only a statement that X is an singer-songwriter. He was born on MMDDYYY, and lives in City. qualifies in any meaningful sense for G11. It doesn't say he performs in public, nor has any recordings to distribute. Saying one has a hobby, or aspirations, is not promotionalism. I'm very willing to use G11 when it does apply-- I delete or nominate about one or two hundred a month for that. I will stretch criteria when it's the only solution, but I think it detracts from the proper and necessary extensive use of G11 to stretch it too far when it is not the only way. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- DGG, while I appreciate that position, my reading of many related WT:CSD discussions is that is has consistently been a losing argument for consensus. Many frequently argue that G11 is used too cautiously. I respect your position as a minority position, I do not actively disagree. To be clear though, do you agree that these pages should be speedy deleted, but under a new code and not under G11? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Could you guys have pity on curious talk page stalkers and give us clue what page you're talking about? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- 😀 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Isaac Hamari. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think they should be speedily deleted. I opposed the earlier proposals, because they were too general and would have eliminated articles that had some possible chance of being improved. Perhaps we might be able to think of a more restrictive criterion that might possibly pass, using examples like these as our arguments. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- 😀 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Isaac Hamari. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Could you guys have pity on curious talk page stalkers and give us clue what page you're talking about? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation RM discussion
Since you participated in this discussion about disambiguation pages just shy of two months ago, would you be willing to voice your thoughts on this move discussion that deals with the same issue? I believe you would have something to say about it. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
DS Alert climate change
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
custom addition
As you may know, in 2014 we explicitly ended the "warning" system to move to a no-fault information system using the above template. At the time I argued for a bot to hand them out to everyone in a topic area, from Gandhi to Machievelli, just because they worked in the topic area. I posted this template on MY OWN PAGE a few months ago. I also posted it at Femke's page, and now you are "on notice" about its contents too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Why WP:civility is extra important on climate change related articles
(edit conflict) In your latest edit contained two words I consider to be a bit uncivil. The first one is ranting. My good faith interpretation of your use of climate changeability is that it's a made-up term to describe something real, namely both climate variability and change, and since you don't want us to use climate changeability, that's okay. As delimitation between different terms is extremely important here (based on RSs), I also understand that NEAG didn't interpret your contribution in that way. It's not that useful to call their elaborate response ranting. The second word I interpret as not that friendly is serious. I respect your opposing of the term in favour of a more natural disambiguation (but which one, that is still in line with the technical definition?), but I find it slightly disrespectful to call the proposed title unserious, a title that is the outcome of months of discussing, reading of guidelines and reading of RSs. Climate change is a topic that evokes strong emotions of many of our editors and I therefore put the bars of civility higher than normally on Wikipedia to make sure we can come to consensus. Would you maybe be willing to rephrase your comment? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
FYI
Oops, you may want to change "anthropomorphic" (this rock looks a lot like my Dad's nose) to "anthropogenic" (caused by humans). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sometimes this happens to me, I get the wrong word stuck. In hindsight it looks so silly, as I well know what -morphic and -genic mean. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, it happens to all of Gus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)I'm reminded of the old joke, Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate it when you do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, it happens to all of Gus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe mediation?
Hi SmokeyJoe,
I'm a big believer in WP:OTHERSOPINION but I find myself unable to accurately write your views. I've tried a bit at article talk but can't seem to get it to the point you say "Yeah, that's right". I'm thinking that maybe a mediator could help us concisely understand each other. Would you be willing to try that process in a "break out session" from the main talk page thread? To be clear, the only goal would be to make it possible for me to accurately summarize you viewpoint. We could then paste that into the main discussion.
While you digest that offer, I'd like to review a couple of things.
First, as we know there has been protracted dissatisfaction with climate change vs global warming articles. We last debated all the many nuances all at the same time in 2018. Here are three highlights to call to your attention
- 2018-06-13 (Full thread) An ed proposed moving Global warming to "Climate change"
- 2018-06-04 A different ed points out that "climate change" was already taken saying "That's called a malformed RM and ought to just be summarily closed. Rethink and try again..."
- 2018-06-06 SmokeyJoe supports moving Global warming to "Climate change" saying "per overwhelming use in the best references, specifically the lede references and the expansion of IPCC"
To begin, please allow me to apologize. At article talk I said I couldn't remember you from climate pages, and that's indeed true if I limit my internal "memory search" to "regulars". But its clear from the above that you've at least dropped in and I failed to acknowledge this.
That 2018 discussion died because it was so sweeping there was something in it for everyone to fight. The only way to resolve any of the issues is in babysteps. Which is why we packaged the current rename proposal at [{Climate change]] the way we did. If that should pass, then the problem in 2018 goes away.... the other thing you would like to see would no longer be a "malformed RM". So in case the implications have not occurred to you, in 2018 you said you wanted global warming to be renamed as climate change, another editor pointed out the technical problem created by "climate change" already being assigned to article, making such a move proposal a "malformed RM". If the babystep rename at climate change passes, that problem will go away. This seems like a reason to support the babystep proposal, assuming you still want Global warming to be renamed.
And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for or against anything other than the current proposal at article talk. There will be subsequent proposals and debates. The first step is to just "free up" the phrase "climate change" so those debates become technically actionable.
Thanks for reading, and I'd really like to be able to write your opinion in succinct paragraph, but I'm still confused as to exactly what your opinion is (other than so far you don't like it). I think a mediator might help us stay focused. Would you be interested in trying that as a sidebar discussion?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I didn't remember the 2018 discussion. What I know is that these pages are on my watchlist, and I have some interest in them. Climate change is not my "expertise" for sure, but I do feel conversant with the history, science and politics of climate change. I find the Wikipedia articles on the several pages to be disorganized, poorly structured. Occasionally, over many years, I have looked in, not seen the obvious solution, and done nothing. I am prepared to have my mind changed, I don't think I have any opinion here set in stone, but I am unimpressed, unpersuaded, by the current rename proposal. I do think "Global warming" is POV and should be moved from that title. Global warming, in my opinion, is a well supported theory, but it has noisy opposition, and Wikipedia should try hard to keep out of the controversy. I have suggested the current "climate change" --> "climatology". I did not suggest "climate changeability", I made that up for the purpose of explanation.
- I don't feel there is any need for mediation. I could and might reward the "ranting" post; offense was not intended. I am still watching the discussion, but I feel I have made my point and am waiting to read what others say. I expect the proposal to drag on before failing, and there may later be a better discussion. It is not easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see that my !vote at Talk:Global warming/Archive 74#Rename Proposal Alternative A was not much agreed with. I am still reflecting on that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- But I still don't know what your point is, except you don't like it. Note that in 2018 you cited IPCC and "overwhelming use of best references" for what "climate change means, but in the current discussion you said you don't think the sources were that clear. What changed? This is important, so I'll ask at article talk and you can answer there per MULTI. May not get around to it until tomorrow though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Does this help? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll look and followup at article talk as I feel its needed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Does this help? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- But I still don't know what your point is, except you don't like it. Note that in 2018 you cited IPCC and "overwhelming use of best references" for what "climate change means, but in the current discussion you said you don't think the sources were that clear. What changed? This is important, so I'll ask at article talk and you can answer there per MULTI. May not get around to it until tomorrow though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent work catching up and responding to Femkemilene. It certainly is a long thread. When you get a chance, could you please also address the question I left for you a couple days ago? You had expressed at least the possibility of reconsidering pending a demo of a problem with incoming links. I provided one & asked for your thoughts.[1] I'll catch your answer at the RM thread. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello SmokeyJoe,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 798 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
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 |
Arbitration Case Opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Mitoquinol Mesylate
Hi,
Thank you for your response on my draft. Just curious, why do my articles not meet WP:MEDRES sourcing requirements. I thought I had chosen the correct articles. Any help would be great.
Is it just the articles that need to be changed?
Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
AfD
It looks like you were creating an AfD for John Clark Matthews via page-curation but the actual AfD page is missing? AllyD (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. The new page patrol curation AfD tools seems to have broke. It happened at the same time I received a phone call, so maybe I broke it. I tried again with twinkle. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
DelRev
This may be only the 2nd or 3rd time I have ever complained about what is said or implied about me in a discussion, but, altho not technically a PA, the term you used there implies I propose to facilitate something, which you may want to adjust. I suggest perhaps "continued errors", DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- DGG, you are an awesome Wikipedian and role model, and nearly always I think you are right. This is not one of those occasions. If that article is undeleted for its prior authors to “clean up”, it won’t happen, but will become an ongoing disaster. When the original author(s) think they can build an article on IMDb and worse, WP:TNT applies, and the message to them needs simple clarity. WP:THREE provides a suitable simple clear statement. Letting them play with the dozens of weak poor and unreliable sources is not the way forward. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- it may possibly not be the way forward, and possibly my !vote is incorrect. I'm still not happy with "scholarly dishonesty". But It's always possible I was over-sensitive for once., and I'm certainly not going to pursue the matter; don't concern yourself, and remove this if you like. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- I should rephrase “scholarly dishonesty”, it is being read different to what was intended. What I mean is that if information [Xi] was taken from unreliable source [Xs], and if the page is cleaned sloppily, [Xs] replaced by new better source [Ys], then the page is left looking like information [Xi] is based on [Ys], which is probably not true if not done with great care.
- In this article ( in its cache) there is a lot of information drawn from unreliable sources. I expect that the authors if given the opportunity to cleanup, that they will not cut the information drawn from the unreliable sources.
- Thanks for posting here. Please tell me if you still disagree, or if you think I am looking at these things in a bad way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am influenced by marking essays and theses where the student writes it all down, and THEN looks for references to back up what they just wrote. Undergraduates and postgraduates do this sometimes, and so do some beginner Wikipedians, and so do editors pushing a non-notable topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Joe, @DGG: is absolutely right to be unhappy with the "scholarly dishonesty" comment. Your approach to that discussion—making unsubstatiated snap-judgments, and then choosing prose to caste things in the worst possible light—was irresponsible and formally slanderous. In any just venue—such as my university or place of business—I would have pursued formal action against you. Moreover, your characterisation of the editing I did at Hayley McLaughlin is, again, here, today, a complete mischaracterisation—for it is I that deleted the IMDB citations, and replaced them with third-party, independent sources. Perhaps you are just a sloppy scholar; your "...which is probably not true" says it all (when, in fact, any look at a "diff" would show how much the content actually was edited to match the new sources). No, you acted, and acted strongly, and confidently, and firmly, on a presumption of guilt, even though evidence was available had you taken even a little bit of time. When someone who is sloppy makes firm, egregious accusations, it goes beyond sloppy to being, itself, academically dishonest. (I address the slanderous accusations again below, in a separate section, and both that malfeasance and your sloppiness in the DelRev.) It is because you are not alone in this, your injurious approach to others, that I formally retired from logged editing at WP, and why I do not trust this institution, either with regard to my person, or any student for whom I have responsibility. When I say "you should be ashamed," it was not intended as hyperbole. And I am ashamed at the possibility that we both might have had the same title at an institution of higher learning. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is difficult to engage with this conversations, largely because WP:IP addresses are not people. Could you at least sign a nickname that I can remember and address you by?
- “Scholarly dishonestly” may have been clumsily used. The problem is with changing the citations for pre-existing information. I think that if the bulk of the sources are not good sources, WP:TNT is the answer.
- I don’t know what diff you could be referring to. The article and its history were deleted and I am limited to the AfD and the google cache.
- If you have an account, you are required to use it when editing in project space. You don’t have to use an account, but if you want to abandon your edit history, you should not be engaging in any projectspace discussion, including DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Joe, @DGG: is absolutely right to be unhappy with the "scholarly dishonesty" comment. Your approach to that discussion—making unsubstatiated snap-judgments, and then choosing prose to caste things in the worst possible light—was irresponsible and formally slanderous. In any just venue—such as my university or place of business—I would have pursued formal action against you. Moreover, your characterisation of the editing I did at Hayley McLaughlin is, again, here, today, a complete mischaracterisation—for it is I that deleted the IMDB citations, and replaced them with third-party, independent sources. Perhaps you are just a sloppy scholar; your "...which is probably not true" says it all (when, in fact, any look at a "diff" would show how much the content actually was edited to match the new sources). No, you acted, and acted strongly, and confidently, and firmly, on a presumption of guilt, even though evidence was available had you taken even a little bit of time. When someone who is sloppy makes firm, egregious accusations, it goes beyond sloppy to being, itself, academically dishonest. (I address the slanderous accusations again below, in a separate section, and both that malfeasance and your sloppiness in the DelRev.) It is because you are not alone in this, your injurious approach to others, that I formally retired from logged editing at WP, and why I do not trust this institution, either with regard to my person, or any student for whom I have responsibility. When I say "you should be ashamed," it was not intended as hyperbole. And I am ashamed at the possibility that we both might have had the same title at an institution of higher learning. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am influenced by marking essays and theses where the student writes it all down, and THEN looks for references to back up what they just wrote. Undergraduates and postgraduates do this sometimes, and so do some beginner Wikipedians, and so do editors pushing a non-notable topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- it may possibly not be the way forward, and possibly my !vote is incorrect. I'm still not happy with "scholarly dishonesty". But It's always possible I was over-sensitive for once., and I'm certainly not going to pursue the matter; don't concern yourself, and remove this if you like. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You do yourself and the encyclopedia a great injustice...
...leveling unjustifiable, and indeed ludicrous, accusations of paid and/or POV editing. This goes beyond failing to WP:AGF, this is simply reckless. Look here, and tell me which of the living and dead subjects appearing at these regular IP addresses of mine am I being accused of accepting pay from—the deceased Robert Litz? The people or organisations called Biodiesel production or Battle of the Zab? Or maybe the town of Córdoba, Spain or the entourage of Turkish novelist Elif Shafak? Your accusations are nonsense, and made with no due diligence whatsoever. The breadth and style of my editing are prima facie obvious. My edits make most articles look worse, because I call out bad sourcing. You should be ashamed. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC), and 67.167.8.141 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I’m afraid I don’t know what you are talking about. The article Robert Litz is not on my watchlist, and I have no memory of the person. Same with the other articles you mention. I also do not know who you are. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
"If you have an account, in ProjectSpace you must use your main account."
Sorry to bring this to your talk page, but per the post I just made I don't think that page is the appropriate venue to ask for clarification on this (the issue is resolved, and this is an unrelated matter).
I've never heard of If you have an account, in ProjectSpace you must use your main account.
before. Certainly a case could be made that making undisclosed logged out edits in the ProjectSpace is more disruptive in general than doing so in the MainSpace (ditto refusing to disclose the name of your account when pressed on the matter), but I would think making self-disclosed logged out edits is something that is rather more tolerable when done in the ProjectSpace with a specifically stated reason. I've done it a few times in the past, and while I have been called out for making logged-out edits in general (usually by new editors unfamiliar with the sockpuppetry policy), I've never heard of any such distinction being made between namespaces.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Hijiri,
- I was thing of
from WP:SOCK*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.[1]
- My paraphrasing from memory was not quite accurate, however, I advise you to not get into the habit of posting in projectspace as an IP. I also advise you to chill a little. I think you’re a good guy, but you irritate a few, and they irritate you back. I really think that avoidance would be a good thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to respond further, mostly because I understand your point and appreciate both the complimentary content and the slightly less complimentary advice in your second-to-last sentence, which outweighed my disapproval of your use of the word "quite" two sentences prior, and also partly because it wasn't my intention to edit Wikipedia at all during my vacation, but a dispute I had with a now-SBANned editor more than four years ago has been brought up on ANI and I received a harassing message about it on my talk page (causing me to get an email notification and become curious), so I might as well point out that the single most important part of the text you quoted is almost certainly the "undisclosed" part. There are multiple reasons for editing while logged out, and regardless of the context editors are allowed to do so as long as they disclose that fact. (I was essentially sanctioned last year for "sockpuppetry" under similar circumstances, but I had requested a self-block on my account at the time -- if my account hadn't been blocked, no one would have taken seriously the accusation that I was engaging in "sockpuppetry" to post a logged out comment in which I said "I am Hijiri88", and you will almost certainly never find an instance where such an action was in itself considered to be "sockpuppetry", as opposed to block-evasion. If I personally choose to avoid making self-disclosed logged-out edits for my own reasons, such as prior bad experience -- and yes, I do avoid it for that reason except in fairly extreme circumstances -- that doesn't undermine the fact that it is never sockpuppetry to make such edits.) I would encourage you to avoid accusing editors of sockpuppetry for such behaviour in the future, since not only does your word carry enough weight to sway proceedings in some cases like at ANI, but (for whatever reason) ANI seems to be increasingly patrolled by apparently-new editors who might take your word for it. I had a lot of sympathy from both the community and the admin corps in August 2013 for the reason outlined by Cuchullain, but imagine if someone had said during this ANI thread that what I was doing in filing the report was "sockpuppetry", or if the admin who blocked me for "sockpuppetry" during the proceedings had commented on ANI to that effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Hijiri,
- I hope you are mostly enjoying your break.
- Yes, undisclosed is a key word, and on the project space essay talk page you disclosed immediately, and so there is actually no technical issue.
- However, I strongly recommend that you do not make a habit of editing logged out, and especially editing outside mainspace while logged out. One day, you might forget to disclose in the text, and bang, your n trouble if someone makes an issue out of it.
- I am not conversant with your whole story. I do not know much about your wikistalker. However, posting talk while logged out is a very poor way to avoid a wikistalker. You're giving them a challenge, a not very difficult challenge, and you are putting too much effort in. Instead, I advise you to ask for advice, as you did, but in your own talk page. I watch your talk page. Your friends will answer you an your talk page. Stalkers or enemies who cause you trouble on your own talk page are setting themselves up for sanctions. Don’t hide from stalkers, but stare them down, at least on your own usertalkpage.
- Have you read Meatball:DefendEachOther? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, if I take the trouble to log out (something I'm extremely loath to do, as I normally edit on three different devices daily, and logging out once means I have to log back in on all of them), I'm extremely unlikely to forget to disclose that fact. And even if that were to happen, good-faith forgetfulness (which can easily be undone by adding after the fact "Oh, sorry! I'm so-and-so.") is almost universally seen as a much-less-serious offense than bad-faith wikilawyering over someone's having engaged in such good-faith forgetfulness. The worst that could happen is someone files a bad-faith SPI on me and then, knowing then what I didn't know at any time between last January and last November, I get the editor blocked for deliberate harassment and trying to maintain a record of IPs that have historically been associated with a particular account.
- Think about it: if you saw an ANI thread (or an SPI) in which the OP said "IP X appears to be User Y, but they didn't disclose that fact.[diff]", and when you clicked on the most recent version of the page from which the diff was taken you saw that the OP had said "IP X: Are you User Y?", the IP had then said "Oh, shit, sorry! Yeah, I'm User Y. I'm editing logged-out for such-and-such reason." and the OP didn't respond but rather ran straight to ANI, would you seriously give that OP the benefit of the so-called "doubt"? (And by "benefit of the doubt" I don't mean TROUT rather than BOOMERANG, I mean "Yeah, this looks like sockpuppetry; User Y should be warned about editing logged out.")
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, if I take the trouble to log out (something I'm extremely loath to do, as I normally edit on three different devices daily, and logging out once means I have to log back in on all of them), I'm extremely unlikely to forget to disclose that fact. And even if that were to happen, good-faith forgetfulness (which can easily be undone by adding after the fact "Oh, sorry! I'm so-and-so.") is almost universally seen as a much-less-serious offense than bad-faith wikilawyering over someone's having engaged in such good-faith forgetfulness. The worst that could happen is someone files a bad-faith SPI on me and then, knowing then what I didn't know at any time between last January and last November, I get the editor blocked for deliberate harassment and trying to maintain a record of IPs that have historically been associated with a particular account.
- I wasn't going to respond further, mostly because I understand your point and appreciate both the complimentary content and the slightly less complimentary advice in your second-to-last sentence, which outweighed my disapproval of your use of the word "quite" two sentences prior, and also partly because it wasn't my intention to edit Wikipedia at all during my vacation, but a dispute I had with a now-SBANned editor more than four years ago has been brought up on ANI and I received a harassing message about it on my talk page (causing me to get an email notification and become curious), so I might as well point out that the single most important part of the text you quoted is almost certainly the "undisclosed" part. There are multiple reasons for editing while logged out, and regardless of the context editors are allowed to do so as long as they disclose that fact. (I was essentially sanctioned last year for "sockpuppetry" under similar circumstances, but I had requested a self-block on my account at the time -- if my account hadn't been blocked, no one would have taken seriously the accusation that I was engaging in "sockpuppetry" to post a logged out comment in which I said "I am Hijiri88", and you will almost certainly never find an instance where such an action was in itself considered to be "sockpuppetry", as opposed to block-evasion. If I personally choose to avoid making self-disclosed logged-out edits for my own reasons, such as prior bad experience -- and yes, I do avoid it for that reason except in fairly extreme circumstances -- that doesn't undermine the fact that it is never sockpuppetry to make such edits.) I would encourage you to avoid accusing editors of sockpuppetry for such behaviour in the future, since not only does your word carry enough weight to sway proceedings in some cases like at ANI, but (for whatever reason) ANI seems to be increasingly patrolled by apparently-new editors who might take your word for it. I had a lot of sympathy from both the community and the admin corps in August 2013 for the reason outlined by Cuchullain, but imagine if someone had said during this ANI thread that what I was doing in filing the report was "sockpuppetry", or if the admin who blocked me for "sockpuppetry" during the proceedings had commented on ANI to that effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Moving towards an RfC on WP:JOBTITLES
I feel like following that discussion that it's time we started thinking about initiating an RfC to whack the thing once and for all, but it's been years and years since I've done one of these and I'm also not sure what specifically one might put to change it. Any thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| For going beyond the call of duty (when there isn't any duty involved in DRV) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_January_3 to verify that the non-English sources did not establish notability. (The appellant was wrong, but this disposed of the appeal definitively.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC) |
Oops, sorry
Sorry, force of habit. I am a serial thanker. Apologies for thanking you! (Perhaps the most Canadian user talkpage post ever?)
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted your edits to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop as the workshop phase is closed, no further edits should be made to the page. The talk page remains open, if you need to discuss further. CodeLyokotalk 16:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback & apology
Hi SmokeyJoe -- Genuine thanks for your feedback on the Cheshire portal. I was a bit startled, on happening to visit that talk page after being directed there from the portals project talk page, to find critique of the portal that did not attempt to inform me. Sorry that my immediate response was rather defensive. I'm still expecting "open season" on portals at MfD to resume, if one is allowed to make such flippant comments.
I'm also genuinely flummoxed that you couldn't work out how to edit the Cheshire portal introduction. Unlike the automated portals, it's relatively intuitive -- there's an edit link on the top right of each box. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Espresso Addict. I often am tempted at making passing comments at face value on things wherever they come up. Someone else said Cheshire portal was one of the best portals. By making some passing feedback comments there and then, it proves that at least I read it. The comments are trivial, what I really mean to do is look at the pervading style of portals, I think they have a problem there. Most recently, I am observing that many are trying to do too many things, introduce a broad topic, provide navigation, feature the best quality pages, and connect back WikiProjects. Too many things means a lack of focus, whatever the desire of the reader, it is doing an unfocused job to serve.
- I could have tried harder to find the lede mention of the parent article, to Wikilink it. I guess that the lede text was being auto-selectively transcluded before I thought to look for a transcluded into subpage. I was playing the newcomer. I think the portal is too complicated for newcomers to edit.
- These are points I observe, feedback. I'm not immediately trying to offer solutions. Nominating at MfD is not a solution.
- However, some solutions are popping into my mind. When editing the main portal page, an edit window notice could be useful. The edit window notice could tell me where to find maintainers, where to offer feedback, and could tell me about how to edit sections that are transcluded subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- People often mention Portal:Cheshire as a good example; I usually mention Portal:Opera, a similar niche topic that's still being actively maintained, and has a lot of featured content to power it. I don't like their automatically updated featured/good content box though. (Courtesy ping @Voceditenore:)
- The lack of vandalism I encounter supports the idea that most newbies are not finding the edit links. Edit window notices on the main portal page are a good idea, though I fear I have no idea how to implement them. Some of the info on whom to contact is captured on the talk page as part of the portals wikiproject banner, but as it is sometimes presented in a rolled-up and autohidden state, you need to know to look for it. (I tend to write long notes in the status field to anyone trying to maintain the portal but that's not a widespread habit.) In any case, I think you are right that new users increasingly don't visit talk pages, let alone click "show" on some inscrutable banner.
- The default talk page link could also redirect to the WikiProject, though one would need somewhere else to place all the boilerplate banners &c.
- One thing your comments underlined is that portals do need active maintainers. It's easy to fix/improve little things but not if there's no-one listening at all. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, do portals need active maintainers? I think that is a negative about portals, and a better solution might be a common portal resource help line. A place to ask for help with editing the template-heavy coding that is common to portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- My model of portal does; your model of portal might not. A helpline for portal coding sounds like a good idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Showing up per Espresso Addict's ping
. I had a look at the "Featured content" section on the Opera Portal and noticed the intrusive banner that has suddenly started appearing, courtesy of the bot. I've removed it. As for the section itself, it was there when the portal became a Featured Portal and, at the time, was considered a desirable feature. I think visitors might actually find it useful, since the articles in the "Selected article" and "Selected biographies" are mostly, but not all, FAs. We also include GAs and a (very) few B class articles there. I personally think portals work best when they are curated by active maintainers, especially "Selected Quotes", "DYKs", "In this month", "Selected audio", and "Featured picture". The pictures require contextualisation and offer the possibility of linking to multiple articles. Ditto "In this month", which also has the feature that every March (Women's History Month), all the anniversaries highlight women singers, composers, etc. [2]. We also ensure that each of the other months has a least one woman higlighted. We set up each set of DYKs to have a balance in the gender, genre, and historical period of the subjects featured in them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Voceditenore. I wish the FA/GA reporting bot was a bit more customisable in its output. I like the idea of In this month linking only women-related anniversaries in March -- if you've got enough material for that to work! There's so much that can be done with a portal, where the underlying material is strong and maintainers are knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Showing up per Espresso Addict's ping
- My model of portal does; your model of portal might not. A helpline for portal coding sounds like a good idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, do portals need active maintainers? I think that is a negative about portals, and a better solution might be a common portal resource help line. A place to ask for help with editing the template-heavy coding that is common to portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
if your interested ?
Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Should we say something about etiquette in moving and page creation?.--Moxy 🍁 06:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have said something at MfD. Sm8900 seems to need a little bit of direction. Odd for such a long term user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems that they just recently re-discovered the Wikipedia namespace.--Moxy 🍁 06:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello SmokeyJoe,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Sig
Your sig doesn't link to the user talk space. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Huh? I only ever use four tildes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Primefac? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Very odd. I thought it might have been some sort of odd signature issue, but it turns out Anthony just messed up your sig manually. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- :) Thanks for fixing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Very odd. I thought it might have been some sort of odd signature issue, but it turns out Anthony just messed up your sig manually. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Billy (Black Christmas)
Hello SmokeyJoe, As you know, I have been working on the article for Billy (Black Christmas) for quite some time now and you recently helped transition the draft into an actual article with the C class as being its current status. I was just wondering what were the issues that needed to be fixed that resulted in the C class, and if there was anything else that I need to add to it?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Paleface. I don’t give the article rating a great deal of attention. I think the article class was a prediction of the curation tool. Was it B, or C? I am not sure. At the time, I thought the article might have been excessive WP:PLOT, but I didn’t examine the sourcing carefully beyond recognising that it was notable. The article is looking very good. I would change its current rating immediate to B, if I knew how. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. The only question is regards to the WP:PLOT was if that was for the past incarnation before its deletion or its curren revised version?--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
note re your ideas
Hi SmokeyJoe. I'm pleased that we could approach this topic of discussion on portals in a mutually beneficial way!! your adoption of my suggestion for a possible statement of purpose was a very constructive gesture on your part. I'm pleased to be working with you, and to be hearing your ideas. active diligent editors like you are what make Wikipedia work well. I appreciate it, and look forward to hearing more of your discussions. thanks! cheers! 
--Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
ANYBİO
Hi @SmokeyJoe , an article Damed Imanov make by me, I think the article should be keep, because the criteria WP:ANYBIO in particular meets and your position is very important, please participate in the discussion and express your opinion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Poetic Lace
Thank you SmokeyJoe for your critique and comment. I have revised the article, and here you will find the requested links.
Link 1: https://www.allmusic.com/search/all/Poetic%20Lace This link comes from AllMusic who is owned by RhythmOne. In connection to Billboard, this is a very reputable site in the music industry. The article has been removed since I've made this submission but the search results remain, verifying Poetic Lace's national activity in the music industry.
Link 2: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-music-media-awards-full-winners-list-1057748/item/original-score-feature-film-1057700 This link comes from The Hollywood Reporter. They followed the prestigious Hollywood Music in Media awards very closely. This confirms Poetic Lace's nomination for the award.
Link 3: http://www.jamsterdamradio.com/2015/05/poetic-lace-unconcealed.html This link comes from Jamsterdam Radio, written in 2015 sharing some intimate details on Poetic Lace's childhood.
Honorable mention: iTunes doesn't archive their charts but they share the info with third party sites that do. This site archived the charts for all artist including Poetic Lace: https://kworb.net/itunes/artist/poeticlace.html
This article was written by an award-winning christian book author, Denisha Wooten: https://christianandco.home.blog
Thank you again for your time! Workhorse333 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article User:Thedisassembler but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. It seems that you mistakenly subst'ed a userbox that was at MfD at the time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Relates to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Gangs Portal. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alexander Beaumont Hope, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I know this is kind of random, but is it okay if you could check out at a draft I created, Draft: Steven Victor, which was initially rejected, and maybe approve it? I've updated the article after the rejection with more adequate sources and information, plus it is well written and I believe it's ready for mainspace. Thank you.
RodeoWrld (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Linking Draft to other language wikipedia
You have recently rejected by draft for Ai no Shinsekai. You mentioned I should add a link to a Japanese language article if there is one. The Japenese language article is ja:愛の新世界 but I do not know how to add that reference to a draft article. Could you please point out how to do that? --Rahab5 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)