User talk:Asilvering/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Good job with the AfD stats

Just wanted to say good job working through all the AfD stats on the AELECT pages, I know it must be taking a long time to do - just wanted to say the diligence and insight is appreciated! BugGhost🦗👻 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been hoping that this encourages others to do something similar for other things, since "divide the discussion by topic and discuss the topics neutrally" keeps coming up in discussions of how to turn down the temperature at RFA. So far, no luck, haha. I'm a little worried that this will result in over-emphasis on AfD participation so I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to start something similar for a topic you're familiar with and see where it goes. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I, too, would like to thank you for posting those statistics. I find them very useful. I don't think they place undue importance on AfDs. PRODs, CSD tags and AfD participation is the closest most editors get to admin work, and their approach is often a good predictor for how they'll handle things once given the mop.

And since I'm here, I'd also mention that I really enjoy reading your well-thought-out, clearly explained AfD closing rationales. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You are really adding value to this new Admin selection process -- not just stats but also a lot of effort into understanding what the stats mean for each candidate.

Thank you! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Glad it was helpful! -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi asilvering, I am still finding it impossible to discuss edits with Shahray, already less than a day after their block expired. They made an edit to Kievan Rus' and subsequently restored it after I reverted them. They did not make another revert after this, but they replied in a completely different discussion on Talk:History of Ukraine saying I won't create hundreds of talk pages just because you always disagree with me for precisely no reason.[1] I told them they should start a discussion on the relevant talk page and that I would discuss with them there, but they stated: If you want to create new topic there, you can do it... And now, I ask for a clear explanation for why my changes are "synth" or "not an improvement", otherwise it's just another unreasonable edit.[2]. I reiterated what I said, saying that this would be a misuse of the talk page, and they responded: I shouldn't waste my time on interrogating you everywhere for "more details", you should give a clear reasoning for you edit from the beginning. If you prefer to give explanation in the talk page, then fine, do it there.[3]

I also noted that they had already started a talk page discussion before (as an IP) on Talk:Kievan Rus' about similar changes they made now (and a couple other editors had discussed this with them and there was no consensus for those changes). I was certain that this was them because I had previously reverted Shahray's edits before and the same IP left a message on my talk page asking why I reverted them.[4] After this they self-reverted and logged in as Shahray and wrote the same comment.[5] I told them to continue the discussion there as a result and I responded there. Despite this, Shahray said: This is not a discussion done by me, and looks antinormanist, why should I care?.[6] Then they edited the comment to say: obviously, do you know anything about this topic or are you just testing my patience?.[7] In their last comment, they once again imply that I am simply reverting them in bad faith: I just have no interest to wander in circles because of you giving some of the most minor excuses to not let my changes get in again and again.[8]

I have tried to explain my reverts using policy-based reasons but it seems that no matter what, they will always suggest that I just reverting them for no reason. I do not want to start another ANI discussion so soon, particularly if this may be viewed as premature. Can you suggest any steps that can be taken here to resolve the issue here, if possible? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you to look at your behavior first and stop complaining to other editors like a child.

Typing "I don't think this is an improvement" and inserting a random policy isn't yet a proper explanation. I asked you repeatedly why you consider this a WP:Synth [9], yet you haven't managed to reply to me properly. This is your last comment: "Also, I have not seen the formulation "first Rus people" before". Explains absolutely nothing about why my changes are "WP:Synth". Because you never really give an explanation, you just force to constantly wander in circles.

You've also made a claim like there's no source that tells about "Rus' land" [10], when it's literally mentioned one sentence above.

It looks more like you are just trying to create most minor excuses to not let my changes get in. The fact that you don't want to further discuss this on the talk page and instead you wrote this message proves my point.

You have been already formally warned to not make unreasonable reverts, yet here we are again.

If you feel like you are unable to constructively discuss in this topic, then you shouldn't be trying to waste more time of other editors and instead move to the topics you're more knowledgeable about. This is my advice for you. Shahray (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I think you're fine to go to ANI about it. They've been blocked twice for this already, and now they might be doing WP:LOUTSOCK stuff. There was some pretty serious failure to "get it" in response to El_C's week-long block. Sometimes people don't course-correct and there's nothing you can do. -- asilvering (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and use that reply above as evidence. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- asilvering (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hoping there could be an alternative way to resolve this without having to go to ANI, but their response above, along with the subsequent edits they've made and what they wrote on the talk page of El C has unfortunately made ANI inevitable. Mellk (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thewriterthree (20:03, 26 October 2024)

Hi Asilvering, it is a pleasure to e-meet you. I have added a citation on-to this article:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_New_York_City

And wanted to make sure I did it correctly.

The statement is:

"The beaver’s importance in New York’s history is reflected by its use on the city’s official sea" --Thewriterthree (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Thewriterthree, welcome to wikipedia! It looks like you did the first one correctly (the one on "Hudson's report on the regional beaver population served as the impetus for the founding of Dutch trading colonies in the New World."), but not the second. See how the second is missing "ref" tags? I'll fix it for you so you can see. -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fixed it. There are lots of easier ways to add citations, too - I tend to add mine using the automatic function on Visual Editor. (Press "cite", then drop the ISBN into the popup. It sucks at searching for titles but works fine on ISBNs, dois, URLs, etc.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Thewriterthree (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

AFD Redirect Questions

I suggested in redirects here? Are they reasonable, and does the AfD closure meant prohibit me from making them? McYeee (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know anything about the topic so I can't really say if making a redirect would be a good idea. I don't see a good spot on Heat-assisted magnetic recording for those to redirect to (I'd be hoping for a section heading or something like that). Does WP:REDYES apply? If so, it's probably better not to create any redirects. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Redyes applies. Thanks for pointing it out! I think the place I thought made a good redirect target was actually a single paragraph in hard drive, but that's not actually a good target. McYeee (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from L'Andreea (08:28, 28 October 2024)

Hello. I created an article about a month ago. How long will it take to be reviewed? --L'Andreea (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it just was! Unfortunately it was declined because it didn't meet the notability guidelines. I don't suggest that you keep trying with this one, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is looking for articles on people who are already well into their careers, rather than people who are just starting out. Sorry! I'll come by your talk page and drop you some useful links. -- asilvering (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Sumanmali11 (16:00, 28 October 2024)

Hi Asilvering,

I am editing my clients wiki and one guys started to revert the changes. How can I lock the wiki page? --Sumanmali11 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sumanmali11 (talk page watcher) To answer your question, you can't have the page locked so only you can edit it. It's against policy to restrict editing for people who are abiding by the policies and guidelines, and also technologically impossible.

You have a conflict of interest that you need to declare on your userpage per our policies. Don't worry, we're forgiving of those who don't already know. Courtesy ping for Viewmont Viking I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this one, @I dream of horses. @Sumanmali11, I'll just add that if you need a page locked in the future because of vandalism (eg, someone repeatedly replaces the entire contents with "penis penis penis" or whatever), the place to go is WP:RPP. Do not go there because someone reverted your changes to your client's Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Land of Skulls

Hello, Asilvering,

I see you turned down a CSD G5 tag for this article because the editor was not blocked. But you can see if you go to Special:Contributions/Cassigad you can see that the editor has been globally blocked as an LTA. Exactly who, it doesn't say. I have a script that shows globally blocked editors with their username crossed out but if you don't use it, you should check out the contributions page to see if WikiMedia has imposed a sockpuppet block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the catch. I was using a script that indicated editors who were blocked, but I didn't know there was one that also showed global locks. Thanks for letting me know that one exists, I've stolen it from your common.js for myself. -- asilvering (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)