User talk:Ganesha811

This is Ganesha811's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 30 days

Promotion of Maria Trubnikova[edit]

Congratulations, Ganesha811! The article you nominated, Maria Trubnikova, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baalveer 3[edit]

Why delete and redirect? There was no argument in the AfD that the article had any problems except for notability/citations, and leaving the history intact under the redirect allows non admins to view the previous poor work in history and improve upon it. Please amend your close to just 'redirect' per WP:DGFA and restore the history under the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. The article had a notability issue, as you say, and arguments in favor of keep were well-countered by those in favor of deletion. The consensus was in favor of deletion, but a navigational redirect would be useful - hence delete and redirect. I don't see guidance on WP:DGFA indicating that this course was incorrect. Could you explain your thinking in more detail? If the material is desired for incorporation, I can put it in a sandbox, but I didn't see arguments for Merge in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main guidance in WP:DGFA not followed here is the bolded point #4: When in doubt, don't delete. Deletion to the point where something is not available to non-admins is absolutely indicated when something is hoax, copyvio, defamatory, or other BLP concerns. For things that are simply unreferenced and/or insufficiently referenced to demonstrate notability, outright deletion may well still be indicated when there is no redirect target. But in this case, we have an identified redirect target, a related topic, into which some of the material could conceivably be merged.

Here's the kicker: You don't need to see a preponderance of !votes for an outcome to assess that as consensus. As an admin, you're charged to do the best thing for the encyclopedia on the basis of policy-based opinions provided by the AfD participants. In this case, it is clear that the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated, but it is also abundantly clear that there is a related topic into which the content may be merged: probably not, but at some point in the future an editor not participating in the AfD might want to expand the target article with content from the redirection. As you no doubt recall, primary sourced statements from a non-notable article can clearly be re-used in a notable article, as long as that article is not primarily composed of such statements.

By redirecting the article without deleting it, you provide a de facto deletion--the article is gone, redirected to the notable topic--while still allowing a potential future editor to use that non-notable material still present in history for either re-creating a separate article or merging content into the target article. This values appropriately the good-faith contributions of the editors who worked on the inadequate version by leaving it in history, but not visible to readers, and does not take up any additional database space to do so.

Does that adequately explain why a straight redirect rather than a delete-and-redirect is a more policy-based outcome for a non-notable topic with an identified redirect (and possibly merge) target? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and will bear it in mind in the future, but I'm not convinced that "redirect" is more policy-based than "delete and redirect", rather than simply being more convenient for editors. To put it simply, I wasn't in doubt in this case. However, no reason here not to make the content available for possible incorporation, as you say, so I've created User:Ganesha811/Baalveer3 and will drop a note on the talk page. Thanks for raising the issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupou VI[edit]

Hello, sorry to bother you. You were the first one to review the article Tupou VI. I have edited the article since and would like you to review it if you have time. If you can't that's ok. History6042 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have time right now, but good luck with a new GA nomination! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. History6042 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis Deletion[edit]

Good Evening, I am writing to let you know this is now the second time the Institute for Legislative Analysis page has been deleted. I am both requesting both its un-deletion and a review by admin into the past deletion actions on the basis of WP:COI.

Upon the original flagging of the page for deletion (roughly two weeks ago) I made a long list of edits in an attempt to appease those seeking the deletion for WP:ORGCRITE. I added these additional four sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands; https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2453025/nikki-haley-tops-limited-government-score-card/; https://marylandmatters.org/2023/06/14/political-notes-a-new-scorecard-gop-claims-vindication-in-poll-and-perezs-new-post/.

Despite the additions and edits made, these individuals still sought to delete ILA alleging it is not a notable organization. To be clear, any objective and rational review of the ILA’s work and influence confirms it is a major player in conservative politics. ILA’s CEO was recently named one of the 500 most influential people in public policy due to ILA’s work - https://www.washingtonian.com/2024/05/02/washington-dcs-500-most-influential-people-of-2024/?__cf_chl_tk=6efEngfVVSbtKjs3ytmihacmdrBsnFaeLcmivLKBr_E-1717299913-0.0.1.1-9001.

Plus, if that was all not enough, I learned a couple of days ago that the ILA is closely followed by Members of Congress. In fact, over two dozen U.S. Representatives posted about a recent ILA report in the last 48 hours alone. Upon reviewing a couple lawmaker posts, I learned that the ILA is actually an entity of the Conservative Partnership Institute – the most powerful MAGA org tied to President Trump and Mark Meadows. Therefore, I thought I could finally without a doubt put the entire debate to rest - there are countless articles that demonstrate the notability of CPI, including an extensive one from the New York Times. This solved every possible concern those seeking to delete ILA could have. I was in the process of adding additional documentation to the ILA page (such as financial disclosures on CPI and ILA with same address, members of Congress acknowledgement, etc.). However, before I could make the updates to the ILA page, it was deleted for yet the 2^nd time.

Since the ILA is one of the top players in conservative politics I could not understand why the page was coming under such attack for deletion. Therefore, I started looking at the profiles of those seeking its deletion. Interestingly, they appear to be philosophically progressive. While I am unsure if there is a political motivation behind their advocacy to delete the page, I think it is fair to say they probably do not have much understanding of conservative politics, especially compared to someone myself who closely follows conservative non-profits.

But perhaps even more interesting, when doing additional research into ILA’s financials, I found out that the American Conservative Union has filed a lawsuit against the ILA claiming multiple counts of “unfair competition in the marketplace”. Apparently, both of the orgs produce scorecards. And it just so happens that these deletion flags came around the same time as the filing of the lawsuit.

Thank you for your help in this matter and work to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Accusing other Wikipedians of acting out of political motivations, or implying that they are being paid by a rival organization, is not something that should be done lightly. I suggest you retract those remarks unless you have actual evidence of a COI. The page did not come "under attack" - it simply has been found to be non-notable. If you wish to contest that decision, WP:Deletion review is available, but I should warn you that you are not likely to have much success there in this case. I would also note that if ILA is a sub-organization of Conservative Partnership Institute (and you have reliable sources discussing the connection), why not just add a sentence or two to our article on CPI and create a redirect? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Samiali84 (11:02, 3 June 2024)[edit]

I run a website, and cover these type of topics like anime characters , movies and series. I want to create a my own wikipedia page about my website, is it possible? --Samiali84 (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing about something you have a connection to, or using Wikipedia for promotion, is strongly discouraged. I urge you to find other topics you're interested in to edit about. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

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

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

Bureaucrat changes

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from UsernameNotIn (22:55, 7 June 2024)[edit]

Hello, mentor. So, this article(2024 Rio Grande do Sul Flood) says I can help translate it from the portuguese article, but it's protected to prevent vandalism. Can I edit it or not? If not, why is the "You can translate this" thing there if the page is protected? --UsernameNotIn (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! You're right, those do contradict if you're a new editor, or an IP editor. That page is "semi-protected", which means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and have at least 10 edits to make changes. However, once you've reached those thresholds, you should be able to make changes. The Portuguese translation template is there to encourage more-experienced editors to keep improving the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Congratulations o your recent FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda! Can't believe it's been four years. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Alban2024 (09:54, 12 June 2024)[edit]

HI! How are you doing?

I want to edit this draft since it is in Albanian and can be done in english, can i do it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luan_muca --Alban2024 (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should feel free to translate it from Albanian to English! This is the English Wikipedia, so all the articles need to be in English before being published. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also in English in another url: Draft:Luan Muça but it is declined

shall I translate this and re-submit? here is te albanian aprooved version of this subject: https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luan_Mu%C3%A7a

thank for help Alban2024 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would take a look at the comments from reviewers on that draft. They have raised serious concerns which need to be addressed. It's possible that Muça simply is not notable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it is notable to have an article on English Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles in public domain talking about it.

You can have a look on google about it, if you find time

thanks Alban2024 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from The salimm (18:07, 17 June 2024)[edit]

How do I create citation? --The salimm (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Try reading the following guide - it should be helpful: Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from The salimm (18:09, 17 June 2024)[edit]

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, saints differentiate them? --The salimm (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, could you clarify? —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]