User talk:Voorts/Archive 41
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Voorts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 |
Hello! You should not have included this article in Category:Fandom (website) wikis. The .co site (the Fork) has not been affiliated with Wikia/Fandom since it broke away in 2013. The .com site was abandoned by Wikia/Fandom in 2019 and has since gotten home-brew hosting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Categories do not need to refer to the current status of an item within the category. Reliable sources refer to the connection between Fandom and Uncyclopedia, so it should be in that category. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is a connection. But neither website is a "Fandom wiki" as the Category implies. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the category implies that either site is currently a Fandom wiki because being in a category doesn't imply that that characteristic is current. Additionally, there's no Category:Former Fandom (website) wikis. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2024
- In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"
- Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus
- Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics
- Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing
- News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?
- Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors
- Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Tamara (given name) review
Utter non-sense to quick-fail an article of that size, everything could be done in a matter of a few days. That article had been months in the GA review list just for a bad reviewer like you to quick-fail it...The Blue Rider 
14:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Blue Rider This comment is out of line. You need to add at least 8 sources, and a copyedit is due. An article can also be quickfailed if "It contains copyright violations", which voorts' spot check indicates it does.
- It is a serious problem at Good Article reviews that people are unwilling to fail articles because they're worried people will come after them. I will review this article in a week so it won't stay sitting in the queue for months. Just keep a cool head, we do this for fun. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly is it written that 8 sources are required? Some things might need minor edits, but the article is so short that it can be fixed in no time. Literally only ONE sentence was flagged for copyright; it’s ridiculous that lazy users can’t be bothered to actually review an article, they just quick-fail it! The Blue Rider
14:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read the article and looked at the sources a few times, sat on it, wrote up an initial review, deleted that, repeated that process, sat on it again, admittedly forgot about this review, and then came back to it yesterday and only then quick-failed the nomination after reviewing the article and sources yet again. I quick-failed this nomination because the notable people list has 64 names in it, all of which need citations, and because I think that the article needs another two copy edits (including one by another editor), with a particular focus on sentence structure, as I highlighted in my review. I did not think that we could accomplish all of this through the GAN review process. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The list doesn't need sources at all? What even kind of sources would you need for that? That the people are named Tamara? Makes no sense, see Femke article which is GA, no need for sources on such list... The Blue Rider 15:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, the dates of birth and profession require citations to reliable sources. The reviewer of that GA also didn't raise this concern. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The list doesn't need sources at all? What even kind of sources would you need for that? That the people are named Tamara? Makes no sense, see Femke article which is GA, no need for sources on such list... The Blue Rider
- (edit conflict) I would probably have quick-failed the article too. Most of the issues voorts identified could have been found and fixed before nominating. That's the best way to avoid quick-fails -- to bring the article up to the GA criteria as well as you can before nominating. The resource that is in shortest supply at GAN is reviewing; nominations that unnecessarily increase the effort a reviewer has to put in are not helpful to the process. I see you're planning to renominate immediately; that's up to you, but I think you should address the issues voorts identified first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I read the article and looked at the sources a few times, sat on it, wrote up an initial review, deleted that, repeated that process, sat on it again, admittedly forgot about this review, and then came back to it yesterday and only then quick-failed the nomination after reviewing the article and sources yet again. I quick-failed this nomination because the notable people list has 64 names in it, all of which need citations, and because I think that the article needs another two copy edits (including one by another editor), with a particular focus on sentence structure, as I highlighted in my review. I did not think that we could accomplish all of this through the GAN review process. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where exactly is it written that 8 sources are required? Some things might need minor edits, but the article is so short that it can be fixed in no time. Literally only ONE sentence was flagged for copyright; it’s ridiculous that lazy users can’t be bothered to actually review an article, they just quick-fail it! The Blue Rider
Women in Red October 2024
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Feedback request: Music Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pretty Please (song) on a "Music" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Margaret Reid (politician) on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.