Jump to content

User talk:Asilvering/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Repeat behaviour

Hi @Asilvering I hate to bring this to you again but the same user has made another request for an unban 15 minutes after you rejected the current one for the same behaviour that got them banned in the first place. I sincerely don't see anything changing with them unless they're completely banned from Wiki for the 6 months or for it to be extended further as they're showing no signs of change and repeating the same request over and over wasting admin time. Galdrack (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't let yourself get bothered by a blocked editor - they can't edit anywhere other than their own talk page, so they'll completely disappear from your life if you just unwatch it and unsubscribe from any threads on it. As far as wasting our time goes, WP:RFU is as voluntary as anything else on here, so don't worry about people wasting our time. I suspect we're getting close to giving the standard offer, anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ruefrex1 (15:10, 4 December 2024)

Hi, can I update a wiki page about me? --Ruefrex1 (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ruefrex1, we'd rather you didn't. Instead, please go to the article's talk page and use Template:Edit coi to suggest changes. Have a look at WP:COI while you're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Dachuna

I noticed you closed this discussion without any explanation after participating in the discussion itself. The proposed deletion was opposed by a number of users none of whom were persuaded by arguments put forward as far as the discussion indicates. Can you explain the decision please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deacon of Pndapetzim, the comment you link to as "participation" doesn't take any position about the outcome of the AfD. As I said then, it was an attempt to get the discussion back on track. That kind of comment is normal for AfD closers to make. As for the decision, there was broad consensus for redirection before it was relisted (see comment immediately before the relist, which I agree is an accurate representation of the discussion), and, thereafter, unanimous agreement on a target. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The AfD page specifies 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus', you don't meet that criteria. My perception that you were unduly involved is reinforced by your participation in the nominator's AN thread, where you participated along side the nominator's bully squad whose behaviour caused me to withdraw my participation in the deletion discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Asking for people to provide sources is not participation in the deletion discussion. You also weren't bullied: you were called to account for being rude and dismissive and then doubled down on that approach. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deacon of Pndapetzim, if you are sure I count as WP:INVOLVED, please take it to WP:XRV, since I really don't think it counts as "involved" to observe that a deletion discussion participant's behaviour is unhelpful and to try to push it back on track. I don't think you should take it to WP:DRV, because I don't think there's a realistic hope of the redirect outcome being overturned, and XRV seems the better place to me for "involved or not". -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, as you clearly realise 'involved' is kind of a fuzzy concept with ambiguities and room for manoeuvre, and so any attempt to offer scrutiny for this 'involved' judgment would put the subject at the mercy of the 'who has the most pals' type of Wikipedia 'consensus' & potentially something akin to the mob behaviour on that AN thread; but why should we go through all that? The statement 'has not participated in the deletion discussion' surely pre-empts this type of wikilawyering. It doesn't matter if you or Voorts can plausibly present you as uninvolved, as clear matter of fact you DID participate in the discussion. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe my comment was any more involved than a relist comment would be, and those are fine. If XRV finds I'm in error, I'll take the trout for it and work to get a better sense of what is and isn't appropriate as far as closer comments go. But if you think our consensus processes are "mob behaviour", I'm not going to accept that correction from you specifically, since I'm not convinced you're a good source of advice on how our consensus-based processes work. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deacon of Pndapetzim the nominator's bully squad Deacon, that is a blatant personal attack. Please strike it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they are always or generally mob behaviour, but they can become like that when there is personal conflict or some other wider issue. Back to the main point, I want to be as sure as possible that you are actually following the logic here and not getting distracted by side stuff. Whether or not you are 'involved' is a side-issue. So is my knowledge of 'how our consensus-based processes work'. Why not just answer a few Yes/No questions? None of them have anything to do with being 'involved'.
1. Doesn't WP:AFD at Wikipedia:CLOSEAFD say that closing admin should be one who, and I quote, "has not participated in the deletion discussion"?
2. Did you not participate in the deletion discussion?
3. Did you not close the deletion discussion?
Am I missing anything? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how whether I'm involved or not is the side issue. It's the issue. The answer to 1 and 3 is yes, and the answer to 2 depends on whether you believe I'm involved or not. My position is, no. Yours is evidently yes. I contend that my "participation", such as it was, in that deletion discussion does not rise to the level of "participation" that makes a closer too involved to close it. If I am wrong, and it does rise to that level, then I would also contend that relisting a discussion makes a closer too involved to make the final close, which is absolutely not the current practice at AfD. If there is community consensus that this kind of comment is involvement, it's at odds also with WP:INVOLVED, which states that One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. So there would need to be some wider community discussion to confirm that your understanding is the correct one, and some policy that needs revising, at least as I see it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no special Wikipedia definition of 'participate' that differs from standard English, you posted in the conversation, simple as that. The AFD page actually lists involvement separately from participating, presumably just to prevent this kind of nonsense. Honestly, on the back of your wee pal Voorts trying to criticise me for 'doubling down' here you're coming out against straightforward English and logic to legitimise what I'm 80%+ sureconfident you already realise was some casual & clumsy decision making, claiming that you are prepared to accept basic logic and English only if you some randos gathered on an internet page tell you should! It's your lucky day though, as funny as all this is, why would I think that a 'trout' would ... could fix that way of thinking? Rhetorical question there, don't need to answer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone else reading this, I'll happily clear up that 80% confidence failure: when I saw your first message about participating, I thought "shit, did I? I could have sworn I didn't find time to do any research on it"; then I opened and skimmed the AfD, went "huh?", then came back to your first message, clicked through to the exact edit you linked, and said, out loud, "you're fucking kidding me". So, no: my positions held here are held quite earnestly and are not me trying to cover up some kind of casual & clumsy decision making. If you think that's wrong and you want it corrected, your route is XRV. If you don't think it's wrong or don't want it corrected, what you're doing here is sealioning. That would be disruptive and unacceptable conduct, and as such I'd advise you to stop. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, there is no need for further chat here, I understand your stance, I've posted about the matter elsewhere, and regard the move request as resolved. I looked at the line 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus' as an attempt to rule out the fuzziness and ambiguity of 'involvement' and I assumed that the line was there so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it, and I found the repeated elision of 'participation' and 'involvement' frustrating. The conversation has revealed that you do not interpret it that way, and I assume from your knowledge and standing that others are in practice interpreing this similarly. I've posted on the AFD talk page, I don't think any other course would do any good as I think the text is insufficiently unambiguous and should be clarified irrespective of what any ad hoc discussion about practice might reveal. Also, I removed my earlier post as it was clear on reflection that it will not do anything but extend a pointless back and forth, neither of us want to be wasting time doing that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The proposed deletion was opposed by a number of users none of whom were persuaded by arguments put forward as far as the discussion indicates. Not that AfD is a vote... But "A number of users" implies something other than the reality of the situation. Two people (yourself and the person you canvassed) voted "oppose", aka keep, and a third voted keep. Sure they won't persuaded, but I count 8 redirect votes, and a delete vote. I'd say none of the 9 people who voted something other than keep seem to have been swayed either, especially considering most of those folks voted after the two "oppose" votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, this is why I suggested XRV over DRV, which would probably just focus on that and ignore the rest of the question. Further discussion on this is now at WT:AFD. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For awesome, saint-like patience above and beyond the call of awesomeness in dealing with Butternutsquash911 bruh -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Joke about mass murder

Blood-curdling, no? Tamzin raises grave concerns (The second part of the thread.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually saw that before I saw the unblock request, lucky for me, so I was appropriately prepared and spent less time going "wtaf" at my screen. Back in my day (harrumph), teenage edgelords had to use Geocities or LiveJournal for that kind of thing. Much less reach, but also fewer volunteers wandering around with banhammers. One hopes they'll grow out of it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, the memories. I used to have a website on Geocities. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra, Tamzin, and asilvering: Personally, but albeit without knowing much context, I would've left whether or not it was a hoax to User:Emergency. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Afraid they don't determine hoaxes and I'm sure Tamzin took care of that when she deleted the thing. She has a lot of experience with this sort of mess. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Don't worry, @I dream of horses, not quite that level of thing. Definitely not real, just not... good. -- asilvering (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra, asilvering: I think User:Emergency contacts a psychiatrist on call who would be better able to evaluate whether or not it's a hoax than we are. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping @Tamzin:, the prime mover. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: The hoax did not threaten any act of violence. It described an alleged act of violence in the past and alleged copycat attacks, all of which were obviously fictitious. If there had been a threat of violence, I would have reported to emergency@, as I have in the past when I've seen such threats, but there wasn't one. Still, you're welcome to report if you'd like. I can send you the deleted copy over Discord if you want to see. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin Thanks for the cognitive interpretation. For the record, I received an email from someone else that they had emailed emergency@. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
chacun à son goût -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

We at the Wikipedia

do not have a sense of humor we're aware of. --MenInBlack -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a block appeal for unsuitable username, where in desperation a new user had picked a long phrase about usernames all being taken, been blocked, and attempted others such as 友马马, which Yamla received with approximately zero humour. I found it amusing, since I have not yet fully assimilated this part of wiki-culture, and that is why I shall never ask for global renamer permissions. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thelifeofan413 (17:50, 6 December 2024)

I am wondering if https://nashvillehistoricalnewsletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/mcelwee.jpg is copyright-free? --Thelifeofan413 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thelifeofan413, impossible for me to tell with nothing other than a link to the image. What's the source say about it? -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That crop comes from the Nashville Historical Newsletter, which is based on this 1887 photo (or a black and white version like this from the TN legislature). I'm not an expert on copyright so I can't tell with certainty when that collage was first published, but I'd guess it's public domain based on the date and the near-certainty it was published in a leaflet or exhibited in before 1929. The image we have in Samuel A. McElwee is clearly a derivative of the collage photograph if that's of any relevance. Urve (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Urve! I'd go with "collage was published in 1887", since that's the date MSTU have in their metadata and it looks like something that was stuck on a wall somewhere. Which would indeed mean copyright-free, unless some other talk page stalker wants to show up and tell us that "it was on the wall of the state legislature" doesn't count as "published". -- asilvering (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Thelifeofan413 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Thatguatemalan on Siege of San Salvador (20:53, 7 December 2024)

how do i make a page --Thatguatemalan (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thatguatemalan, assuming you want to create an article called "Siege of San Salvador", you can simply click on that redlink and start writing. Have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS before you get started. You can also start a new article by going to WP:WIZARD and following the prompts. If you go that route, the article will start out as a draft and end up in the WP:AFC process by default. Once you've submitted, let me know and I can come have a look at it. -- asilvering (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi

Thanks for the message. As I have said, I won't edit the communist state article. I just obviously too optimistic, but I really thought it would be possible to establish a working relationship of sorts (and that he would be interested in it). That was obviously not the case, and that I have to live with. I will start on my next article shortly, the Central Committee of the 3rd Congress of the League of Communists of Bosnia and Herzegovina. TheUzbek (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I expect that people who've taken a dislike to you for whatever reason, justified or not, are going to be very skeptical of your return for a while. You may never be able to convince them otherwise. All you can really do at this point is not create any more upset people. -- asilvering (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Good point! TheUzbek (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Drake Burroughs II (02:35, 11 December 2024)

A good editor can make an article sing! --Drake Burroughs II (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from XxJustAChillGuyxX (03:44, 12 December 2024)

Hello, I have been wondering how do you create a wiki page --XxJustAChillGuyxX (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @XxJustAChillGuyxX, welcome to wikipedia! You'll want to have a read of WP:FIRST. I'll go drop some more helpful links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Asilvering. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Declining G11

Hello

regarding Binaytara Foundation Cancer Center

do you think the given references of this article are sufficient and in depth to quality for a organisation article. I request to clarify, if it doesn’t fit for speedy, can we go for Afd. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Up to you. The criteria you used was G11, but that doesn't apply if the content isn't irredeemably promotional. Declining that CSD rationale doesn't have anything to do with notability really. -- asilvering (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
So glad to see prompt response. So happy. Thank you. 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Les47griffy (03:01, 14 December 2024)

Hello !!!, how do I add to an existing .....Noteworthy people....? ... --Les47griffy (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Les47griffy, it sounds like you're having trouble getting started on making your first edits? You might want to read H:INTRO. There should also be a module right next to the one you used to ask me this question that can guide you through making your first edits. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

name change

i am trying to change my username Jungroup1 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from GSLAWD (09:16, 16 December 2024)

I want to publish my sandbox article, could help me do that? I just created the account

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:GSLAWD/sandbox --GSLAWD (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GSLAWD, welcome to wikipedia! I've moved it to draft for you, and when you're ready, you can press the blue "Submit" button to put it in the reviews queue. Before you do that, you'll want to find more sources that verify the content (see WP:V) and show that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines (see WP:NORG). If you have any questions about that, you can ask me, or at WP:TEA. If you have any relationship to this fraternity, you'll have to read WP:COI and disclose that you have a conflict of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ox1899 (14:50, 16 December 2024)

Hey there, it's me again. I've had a read of your response and I've started looking through the articles with lead issues. I was wondering if there is any way that I can create a page where I can work on my edits before I put them back in to the main article? --Ox1899 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You can create a userspace draft if you like, just by typing /whatevertitleyoulike after the end of your userpage URL. But you can also just work directly in the article - that's how most of us do it! -- asilvering (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hey! You may remember me from a little while ago when I had a Teahouse request. I have finally gotten around to writing a draft of the article. (Draft:Millennium Force's effects) It doesn't have any citations or sources or formatting or proper grammar but merely just information. You absolutely don't have to, and I don't expect you to, but you're more than welcome to take a look at the draft and let me know what you think.

This is information I considered adding to the main article, but there is simply too much of it. I'm not sure if this is notable enough or has enough information to become an article, so that's why I haven't done the "hard" work of adding sources yet.

Just reachin' out! Therguy10 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Therguy10, you've gone about it WP:BACKWARDS - start from the sources and go from there, and you'll find it much easier to write new articles or add to existing ones. We care a lot about clear sources because we want to make sure everything is verifiable, but they also help you with the exact question you have now: "is this worth adding to the article?" When a source talks about something extensively, or a lot of sources mention it in passing, that's a good indication that we ought to incorporate the information into our article.
By the way, did you know that https://themepark.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page exists? This is just the first thing I found by searching "amusement park wiki" on Google, so there may be others. Some fandom wikis are just as picky as Wikipedia about having sources, but most aren't, so you might find a home for some of what you've written there even if you don't end up fitting it into a Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for that; that information is useful! I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle of both sides of this situation.
When I made the article I wrote almost everything based on sources I've found; I just never added them into the article. (Basically I didn't just write what I had in my mind, everything I stated has a source) I do however see my misstep in writing the sources later, as it will prove difficult to verify in the long-term. (I also probably added information that didn't need to be added)
And no, I've never actually attempted editing on a fandom wiki before so thank you! I've had mixed experiences with articles on there in the past but if this doesn't work out then I will definitely give it a look.
I'll work to right my wrong with the draft, as well as add sources, fix grammar and cohesion, and add more information. (If that proves difficult after a while I'll start a different draft) Thanks so very much! Therguy10 (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Queen Vic

Hi,

In October, you closed a requested deletion of the article "The Queen Victoria". I think the request was a mistake, by editors who aren't familiar with the subject, and the conversion of the article into a redirect has affected roughly 300 articles that link to "The Queen Victoria" and "The Queen Vic".

"The Queen Victoria" isn't actually a fork of "Queen Vic Fire Week", but one of the main settings of the popular British soap opera, "EastEnders". The proposed deletion wasn't publicised on pages relevant to "EastEnders", so the participants in the discussion didn't understand that point.

I think the page should be reinstated. Could you tell me how best to go about doing that?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle, to be a standalone article, the topic would need to meet WP:GNG independently. It looks like this one didn't have that, so we can't turn it back into an article, unless you have sources that would show a GNG pass? But what we could do is retarget the redirect to something else that would be more helpful - is there a List of EastEnders locations-type article anywhere? -- asilvering (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Probably the best current target is "EastEnders#Setting", or maybe "Walford". I'm not convinced that would be the best way to go, but as a stop-gap it would certainly be better than the current target.
There are plenty of published sources that could be incorporated into the article if that would help show notability. I'm probably not the best person to do that work: I haven't watched EastEnders since 1986! Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so the thing to do now is to start a discussion at WP:RFD explaining that this should be retargeted to EastEnders#Setting. You could then make a talk page post on Talk:EastEnders trying to get someone interested in gathering enough sources to spin it back out. It's better not to actually do the spinout unless someone's interested in doing that work (the stuff that was there before is still in the page history behind the redirect for anyone who wants to use it as a starting point). We should certainly fix the redirect target now, though. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders, so perhaps I'll open a discussion there with a view to working out how best to move forward. It should certainly be possible to condense the deleted page to make a subsection of "Walford#Albert_Square", for example. Regarding the redirects, would it be frowned upon to simply retarget them "boldly"? WP:RFD can be quite a slow process, in my experience. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Definitely frowned upon - the AfD decided a target already, so you need to find a new consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, the AfD decided a target, but it did so based on a false premise ("Non-notable fork of Queen Vic Fire Week") and an underpublicised discussion by a small group of editors who were clearly unfamiliar with the subject matter. Surely, fixing a mistake shouldn't be harder work than making one. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to voice my support for the closure decision by Asilvering and consensus at AFD. The decision was primarily based on the limited availability of secondary sources to support the Queen Vic article. Most of the relevant sources were already included in the Queen Vic Fire Week article, which is why the redirect pointed there. The consensus aligns with both the AFD discussion and the closing admin's comments, as well as Wikipedia’s guidelines on sourcing and verifiability. I saw the other discussion started by Jean-de-Nivelle and suggested some constructive ways forward that are consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Jontesta (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
But, to repeat myself, "The Queen Victoria" isn't a fork of "Queen Vic Fire Week", so it makes absolutely no sense to point the redirect to that page. If you were at all familiar with the subject matter, I wouldn't need to explain that to you. We now have 300+ links pointing to a nonsensical target. The page "The Queen Victoria" certainly had problems, but demonstrating notability would be a simple task. Deleting the page has caused more problems than it solved. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jean-de-Nivelle, the page hasn't been deleted. It's still there, it's just a redirect. To solve the problem you've identified, all you need to do is open an RfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand that, but my time is limited at the moment, and I've been trying to interest other editors who have more involvement in the EastEnders pages, and who may be better-placed to argue for the best solution. I've also found that RfD can be a fruitless time-sink, so I'd like to go into the process with a clearer idea of an ideal outcome. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't often weigh in on closed AfDs and I've been sitting on my hands over this one as I'm no expert on soaps but this appears to me to have been an obvious mistake. The Queen Vic(toria) is a very well-known location in a very well-known soap that has been running since 1985, with the pub being part of the conception from the outset.[1] The article dates from 7 June 2005 and so it cannot possibly be a fork of Queen Vic Fire Week, which relates to episodes that were broadcast in September 2010. Just because two people suggest a solution in a poorly advertised AfD and no-one objects until afterwards doesn't make that solution correct. If Asilvering won't overturn their decision, then it needs to be re-debated elsewhere as the current situation is absurd. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and RfD is the place. Given @Jean-de-Nivelle's arguments I don't really have any doubt that it would end in any way other than a retarget to EastEnders#Setting, as they suggested. Jean, it takes about as long to set one up as it does to post to my talk page, if you use Twinkle, and after that you can probably ignore it. It really shouldn't be much of a time sink. -- asilvering (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you really object to my IARing it to redirect to EastEnders#Setting? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't, no. And if you can convince @Jontesta it's the right thing to do, it won't really be an IAR move, either, given that they were the nom at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Boldly done. If Jontesta cares to contest then I guess we will have to go to RfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Peachpi on GoldenEye (17:05, 18 December 2024)

Hi, This question is basically about (A) Referencing inflation adjusted numbers that Ive calculated myself through a website & if the calculator needs to be cited (B) If i can include a calulation ive made based on those numbers

I wanted to edit this passage "The film accumulated a worldwide gross of over US$350 million, considerably better than the entire 1980s Bond films, without taking inflation into account."

Its factually incorrect, vague ("entire"=sum or each indiviual?), and pointless to compare numbers that arent inflation adjusted especially over a 14 year period that saw inflation rise by 67% over that period. When adjusted for inflation, the 1st movie in '81 made only 9% less than the '95 movie.

So (A) Once Ive made a change and referenced that the numbers are inflation adjusted, do i need to add a reference to the inflation calculator Ive used? And if so do i need to reference a more legit source even if they use the same US CPI data ie https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator Rather than what i usually use which is: www.usinflationcalculator.com

(B)And is it ok to say something like "averaging $100 million more than each of the last 5 movies in the 80s" ie is it ok to include a calculation that Ive done and also an average, which is by its nature imprecise. In terms of hundreds of millions more goldeneye had made above each of the last 5 movies were (136, 86, 140, 112, 69) for an average of 108m more. (And obviously potentially adding the movie the only did 20million less to that average misrepesents the data) --Peachpi (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Peachpi, welcome to wikipedia! Sorry I missed this message yesterday. I actually have no idea what the standard practice is for this sort of thing, but I assume we have one. It's not WP:OR to do basic math, but when it comes to using something like an inflation calculator, I'm not sure how we usually attribute that. I'm afraid I have to refer you to WP:TEA. Hopefully someone there knows the answer, or where it might be found. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I sure didn't

To elaborate on my answer to your question here:[2] nope, I did not do what you said would be sufficient for you personally. Neither I nor anyone else is bound by that.

It has rapidly become clear to me that we have a serious problem in this area. I knew it was backlogged, and I assumed that the main issue was that appeals just weren't even being replied to. What I've found instead is that many appeals are replied to, but there's no actual action taken and they are just left to sit, sometimes for months even after prolonged discussion.

I do realize this is an area where we need more people working, but I don't think the approach I'm seeing here is even remotely correct. In fact it seems to be what is creating the backlog. Blocked users are basically held in limbo forever because, apparently,. it has been decided somehow, somewhere that it is a very big deal to give newer users that made dumb mistakes a second chance, and they need to be quizzed as to exactly what they plan to do if they are unblocked. If everyone in the discussion isn't absolutely blown away by their answers to such questions, they just stop talking and the appeal is not closed, either to accept or decline, it's just left there open. I don't believe this is a fair approach and I don't believe it is what the broader community expects when new users are blocked. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 21:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what's really unfair? Giving that second chance to someone without looking at their contribution history, so that they can just immediately be re-blocked. Especially, in this case, someone who was blocked for copyright problems and close paraphrasing - something that isn't going to be immediately obvious to most patrollers. This can create a huge cleanup burden on our already-overworked copyright folks, and I can hardly think of something more demoralizing than being unblocked, thinking you were clear, and then re-blocked for the same thing some hours or days later, because the unblocking admin didn't actually check to make sure you understood what was required. In the meantime, I asked some cci folks if they had a minute to look into that user's simple-wiki contributions, and @MrLinkinPark333 found some problems already. The community does actually expect that editors don't violate copyright.
No one in the unblocks queue has been left for "months". The current oldest timestamp for reply is November 11, which is one month and one week ago. Is this like the "several admins" in your AN thread header, where "several" meant "two", namely "331dot and Significa liberdade"? Weeks is bad enough. You don't need to add hyperbole.
I didn't expect to end up working in unblock requests when I became an admin three months ago, but I found the state of the queue alarming and joined in. First, I mostly watched what others were doing, so that I could get a sense for the norms rather than charging in like a bull in a china shop (and keeping WP:MUSHROOM in mind). Then, I started helping, mostly by asking the questions that would make it easier for more experienced unblocks admins to make the call, or by dealing with the most obvious cases. In the meantime, I've been talking to other admins about it, which has indicated that the "norms" of unblocks are set by a very small number of admins, since basically no on else wants to touch the place, and that if I wanted unblocks to be more lenient across the board, I could simply form a new norm by my own actions. I've been glad to hear that, since - I agree with you on this - unblocks have been unnecessarily harsh. Now that I'm more confident about it and have more experience, I've made an effort to be the change, so to speak, and I've also been encouraging others to get involved. With all that said, I hope you can take this in the context and spirit in which it is intended: I think your "move fast and break things" approach is good for the backlog's numbers but has the real potential to drive off editors who are already dispirited. Some will be lucky: it's true that all they needed was to be unblocked. Some will be re-blocked, having been convinced they had learned better and would be fine. Allowing an editor who genuinely thought they had understood the rules about copyright, disruptive editing, promotionalism, or whatever, to go forth and be immediately reblocked for their ignorance - this, I think, is the worst possible outcome of an unblock request. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a relic in this regard, but as the original author of ROPE I have a long-held belief that unblocking is, in many cases, preferable to talking it out for several days or weeks, and that unblocks are cheap, particularly with inexperienced editors. If someone is promising that they understand and will not repeat their mistake, the only way to really know if that's the truth is to unblock and see what happens. I don't see it, at all, as being the unblocking admins fault if their assertions turn out to be untrue. Some people lie, and, sadly, some people are unteachable for whatever reason, either from not listening or not understanding. And some actually do learn. Unblocking sifts these users as we see if they really did understand the issue and really can do better.
For the record, I did find a request that had been sitting for over two months yesterday, and I found another that had been commented on by seven admins without an up-or-down answer. The reason these are no longer in the backlog is that I closed them.
I am very glad to hear that we are in basic agreement that the unblock process in general is too harsh, and I'm glad you're looking to change that. As you've said, part of the issue is that a very small number of admins have been working this area, and as a result, how they do things is de facto standard procedure.
I am not trying to break things, or to pick on individual admins, but the amount of unblock discussions that are just being left to lie with no resolution is not acceptable. That being said, and meaning no offense, I have been an admin a lot longer than you and have filled other roles as well, and over time I have come to feel strongly that we leave far too many things to just sit and fester when a result is clear enough. This is by no means limited to unblock requests. In the last few days, I've also declined a few unblock requests because they were terrible, revoked talk pages access from a serial appealant who wasn't getting it, and reblocked a user who instantly went back to doing exactly what they repeatedly promised they would not do again. I'm not just looking to unblock willy-nilly, but I am trying to give these users a chance to sink or swim instead of being left in limbo. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for you helpful explanations regarding my Teahouse request! Therguy10 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, and good luck with the article! By the way, how are you finding that Suggested Links task on your homepage? -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering Oh thanks, even if it doesn't work out at least I'll get some extra practice editing! :) I'm not sure I quite understand your question...Are you referring to the 2017 Southern Thailand Floods article? I'm not sure how much this answers your question, but on my homepage I had an "easy" filter selected to see articles to edit, and then something about suggested links to confirm. It was one of my suggested edits I think.
[This article in particular, if I remember correctly, had me confirm some links that a bot thought was correct. (I normally try to avoid the copyedit tasks as I'm never sure if I copyedit right) Upon viewing the article, I found a bunch of errors that just drove me crazy lol. As you saw I went through the first half and fixed it up, and I hope to finish the second half soon.]
If that wasn't your question just please rephrase it for me. I just don't understand I'm sorry :/ Therguy10 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
That was my question, and your answer was very helpful, thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For putting together a varied list of areas new Nigerian editors can focus on. CMD (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope it helps... -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering/Archive_14&oldid=1270546583"