Jump to content

User talk:asilvering

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for you helpful explanations regarding my Teahouse request! Therguy10 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
That was my question, and your answer was very helpful, thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
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)[reply]
Thanks. I hope it helps... -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content from a deleted article

[edit]

Hi! As you've recommended in your closing statement to try "writing about it in relevant parent articles" could you copy the contents of the deleted article into my userspace? There were several good sources there that I intend to use. Thanks. Alaexis¿question? 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alaexis, you'll find it at User:Alaexis/Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994). Cheers! -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11 in draft space

[edit]

Hi, Asilvering, how are you? Could you expand a bit on your G11-decline edit summary here for me? Because I know it's in draft space, but also know that it's unambiguous spam, and am pretty sure that G11 applies in draft space as elsewhere (does it not?). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers WP:G11 applies in draftspace too, yeah, but since draftspace is where you're supposed to work on articles if you don't know what you're doing, you have a COI, etc, the bar for deletion there as G11 should (imo) be a lot higher than what we'd apply in mainspace. Actually, I wouldn't call this one unambiguous spam, either, since the "Further reading" section with links to actual news articles rather than spam links implies to me that the editor who created it really is trying to make a Wikipedia article. In draftspace I'd rather err on the side of not biting the newbies, especially for articles that are being submitted to AfC. -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question from Yellowfrogmmmm (20:05, 30 November 2024)

[edit]

how common are mistakes in wiki --Yellowfrogmmmm (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very common. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gaming Benni

[edit]

Hi, you reverted my CSD for this draft. I'd like to say the draft was edited by a user who is blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing including promotion. The draft itself doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability and reads as if the creator of the YouTube channel or someone with close relation to the YouTuber made the page, which seems likely given the channel only has 17,000 subscribers, doesn't have any kind of external news sources as it relies solely on primary sources, being videos from said YouTube channel. I don't think this draft qualifies for having a page on this wiki, and it was already denied twice for the reasons I've listed above. jolielover♥talk 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover, it's a draft; we don't care if drafts are notable or not, and we certainly don't delete them simply for failing AfC review. If the IP who created this is the blocked editor, and that blocked editor doesn't succeed in being unblocked, the draft will eventually time out and be deleted via WP:G13. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover I will add that all of the "G" CSD criteria apply to drafts, but G11 (unambiguous promotion) has to clear a higher bar to get speedily deleted. Personally, I only G11 drafts I check for copyright violations. Gaming Benni wouldn't qualify. The fact the editor was blocked is irrelevant unless they were evading the block at the time the draft was created, which would be another reason to speedily delete a draft. You could nominate the draft for MfD, but really, that's only done if someone submits and resubmits a non-notable draft to the point where deletion is less BITEy than keeping the draft around for six months*; the option to reject a draft (instead of decline it) has greatly reduced the need for this.
*I'm talking about a lack of taking a hint which would require either paid editing or a level of hyperfocus seen only in the neurodivergent. It doesn't happen very often. It didn't happen very often even without a "reject" option. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milan the Leather Boy

[edit]

Last time I looked, which was just a few days ago, the deletion of the Milan the Leather Boy article was a "soft delete" (whatever that means). As the primary author of the article, I was able to post a long comment. Now, all of that is gone. So, I guess it is now a "hard delete", or what? Shocking Blue (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shocking Blue, you posted a comment on the AfD four days after it was already closed, despite the "please do not modify it" message, so I've reverted that comment. You're free to repost it if the article is deleted again. "Soft" deletion means, as it says in that same message, that editors can request the article's undeletion. Since I take your comment to be a request for undeletion, I have undeleted the article. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird pending revisions

[edit]

Hello! I just accepted an edit you made to the Teahouse (which is under pending changes atm). I thought it would be because someone non-autoconfirmed had made an edit earlier, but the Teahouse history doesn't think so. I thought pending changes was grouped in with admin superpowers – any idea why it wouldn't let your edit through? This of course makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things, but I'm curious and procrastinating, so... Perfect4th (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, good question. It definitely should not be requiring anyone who is autoconfirmed or higher to have their edits checked, and I see absolutely no reason why this is happening. I'll see if I can't find someone who can figure this out. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, it's working fine now, so my guess is that Sohom clicked on the link to review the previous changes, then I posted my reply, then Sohom hit the button to review the change - so the system (correctly) decided that mine hadn't been approved and you had to do it instead. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, you mean the system isn't omnipotent yet? Thanks for looking into it! Perfect4th (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Randomuser89 (20:48, 2 December 2024)

[edit]

Can I save my draft without publishing it? If so, how? --Randomuser89 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomuser89, welcome to Wikipedia! "Publish" and "save" are the same thing - wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress that we edit live. If you don't want to make edits on a page in mainspace for whatever reason, you can create a draft through WP:WIZARD. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Celebwikibio (23:36, 2 December 2024)

[edit]

Can you help my biography get approved --Celebwikibio (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Celebwikibio, sorry. You'll need references that show that the subject of your article meets the guidelines at WP:GNG. If you have references that satisfy these criteria, then yes, I can help. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Celebwikibio (23:36, 2 December 2024) (2)

[edit]

approve this for me https://w.wiki/CGym --Celebwikibio (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, since you have not submitted it for review. But if you submit it in its current state, it will be declined, or perhaps rejected. Please have a look at WP:FIRST and WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat behaviour

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

@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)[reply]

Dachuna

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Joke about mass murder

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
Ah, the memories. I used to have a website on Geocities. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Tamzin:, the prime mover. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
chacun à son goût -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

We at the Wikipedia

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you! Thelifeofan413 (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

@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)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Good point! TheUzbek (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
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)[reply]

Declining G11

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
So glad to see prompt response. So happy. Thank you. 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

The Queen Vic

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you really object to my IARing it to redirect to EastEnders#Setting? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

name change

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GSLAWD/sandbox --GSLAWD (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello again!

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

User:Marginataen's recent edits

[edit]

As I said on the admin notice board, I expect that Marginataen will be indef blocked sooner or later. I wanted to bring a couple of recent edits to your attention as the admin who unblocked him. This edit seems like a repeat of the recent date format changes that he was blocked for just recently. And the edit summary in this edit has been blanked so I can't see what it said but the log says "edit summary hidden (RD2: Serious BLP violations)". Ping Tamzin. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyBeachDreams, more than 1/3 of all of your edits to this project thus far have been about Marginataen. You have no edits to any other project. At this point you're either WP:HOUNDING, an illegitimate WP:PROJSOCK, or both. Leave Marginataen alone. As you already acknowledge, admins are aware of the BLPvio - it's already redacted. If Primefac had thought that was block-worthy, Marginataen would be blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted edit summary wasn't that egregious, so I never thought to look at the editor making it. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the redacted ES does use "he", it also has a non-sequitur reference to Denmark that makes me think it's just an autocomplete error. Haven't looked at the rest of this yet, just noting that for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marginataen's next edit on that page refers to an error in the previous edit summary, so I'd assume your take is correct. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further, yeah, these are valid date format changes. I concur that you should move on from focusing on Marginataen's edits, HBD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin No sure which changes you are referring to. I only gave a single example (the existing date format got changed for someone who lived and died in America because they were born in Copenhagen). Marginataen has been making a lot of date format edits for military personnel so I assume those are the ones you mean. Even with those, he is starting to draw concern. Should a nominee for a non-military post be considered military-related?
Look, to be completely honest, I think that the whole subject of date formats is a bit silly. MediaWiki should display the date however the user wants to see it, but I guess that's too obvious. Meanwhile, Marginataen will continue his robotic editing until he annoys enough people. Look at the discussions on article talk pages - he's already in conflict. I give him about two weeks until his next block. Cheers! HappyBeachDreams (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HappyBeachDreams, if previous warnings were unclear: Please find something to edit about other than Marginataen, and/or disclose your past accounts. If you continue raising these kinds of baseless-to-marginal complaints without doing something to show that you are here to contribute in good faith, I will block your account as not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I sure didn't

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Question from Xanya Sofra Ph.D (10:29, 20 December 2024)

[edit]

Hi. I have published a number of scientific articles and three books. I would like to be listed in the Wikipedia. Can I do that by submitting my articles to you? How can I do that? Please advise --Xanya Sofra Ph.D (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)To editor Xanya Sofra Ph.D: Welcome to Wikipedia. As you used the plural, I assume you mean the articles you have written. No, that would be awkward. Your work would be listed at Google Scholar. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose subjects must meet inclusion requirements like Wikipedia:Notability (academics). We do not list the works of scholars per se, though they would be included in an encyclopedia article about you, most likely. WP:ACADEME is an essay that might help you get you acclimated. Perhaps @Drmies: has more specific information. Hope this helps.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Deepfriedokra. @Xanya Sofra Ph.D, since you've published three books, I think you are likely to meet our inclusion guidelines. Since you obviously will have a conflict of interest about yourself, please see WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this and this are self-published, and I don't have much faith in this either. I do not believe that the Journal of Aesthetic Nursing is a real, peer-reviewed, academic journal. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alas. I do have the perhaps over-optimistic habit of assuming that when an academic says "books", they mean "academic books". -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people add "PhD" they want something. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xanya Sofra Ph.D: To create an article about yourself, it would be best to use the WP:ARTICLEWIZARD to create a draft via the WP:AFC process for review by experienced editors. However, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is strongly discouraged as it is fraught with peril. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies everyone else tries to forget their trauma, it's true. -- asilvering (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G11 question

[edit]

Hey, I saw you processed the tag I placed on Isaiah matong abud and blanked in lieu of deletion. When I edited before this clean start, I remember that promotional pages like this were deleted even if in userspace: I would really love to hear the rationale for blanking as I might be behind the curve with any CSD changes here! Thanks a lot, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly deletion-worthy, not a bad instinct on your part. Normally I'd draftify userpages that were tagged as G11 when they look like drafts, but I couldn't stomach it in this case. I noticed that the editor was asking their mentor a question that I presume is about what they wrote in userspace [3], so I blanked instead of deleting in case they wanted to reuse any of that text as a starting point, erring on the side of grace. I'd rather not crush newbies right out the gate if I can avoid it. Your CSD notification will serve as a warning that it was dangerously promotional and they need to take a different approach if they try again. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really helpful to hear. To me, I just saw what seemed like AI-based self-promotion and hit the button. Just to I'm clear for future reference, you recommend using a talk page warning (a la {{Uw-userpage}}) and blanking/moving in cases like these instead of going straight to CSD? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are others who disagree and go straight to "burn it with fire", but my inclination is to draftify anything that could, assuming the best possible faith but absolutely zero competence, be imagined to be a draft. This one really was too much of an ad ("Follow him on Instagram!") even for me, so I blanked instead. If they're an obviously non-notable person who is promotionally oversharing in userspace, a draft won't do them any good either, so I tend to blank and leave them a note saying it's fine to tell us about yourself, just not... that much. I do tend to get out the flamethrower for super obvious AI (chatGPT won't mind if I destroy its hard work), marketing professionals, and bios of obviously non-notable up-and-coming musicians, because I am only human and I have my limits. Where you fall on the "give them grace" vs "show them the door as soon as possible" spectrum is up to you, but in my opinion this would be a better place in general if we leaned more often towards grace. -- asilvering (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly used to be one of the "burn it with fire" types, but I see the merits of this perspective. I'll think about that when tagging for G11 in userspace. Thanks for the good advice! UpTheOctave! • 8va? 22:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, I noticed you answer on the AFC talk page, I had posted [4] there but haven't gotten a response, I appreciate any help, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have any idea what you're talking about, but I've replied there anyway. Maybe someone else will join in. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

[edit]

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy holidays!

[edit]
A golden Wikipedia logo with stars, balloons, and the words "New Year" Happy holidays and a prosperous 2025! An image of a twirling baton which HouseBlaster passed to asilvering after the latter's RfA
Repassing it, if I am allowed to do that. Let's say it is allowed.

asilvering, I was thrilled to pass the WP:BATON to you. You have, in a very short time period, become quite adept at handling CAT:RFU – and even the WP:UTRS stuff (I still am too scared to do much at UTRS...). Working alongside you with helping users get unblocked and regularly contributing has been amazing. Your great teacher skills definitely come in handy, both in dealing with unblock requests and mentoring newbies via WP:GTF. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention your best accomplishment, which is coming up with WP:EFA, which is the superior shortcut to refer to, well, WP:EFA. Wishing you the best in 2025, and happy holidays! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks @HouseBlaster. Happy holidays and all the best in the new year. -- asilvering (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

[edit]
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal greetings:)

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actoreans

[edit]

Those anything like Wiki-midi-chlorians? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

widichlorians? -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wooooowwwww -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas, Asilvering!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
And a Merry Welsh Christmas to you too. (In the spirit of the season, I forgive you for your seizure-inducing colour scheme.) -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy holidays!

[edit]
Happy holidays!
Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Asilvering

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Asilvering, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Galaxybeing (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Christmas greetings

[edit]

Wishing you a wonderful holiday season however you spend the remainder of your December, and a happy 2025! Perfect4th (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Season

[edit]

Hello Asilvering: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Garuda Talk! 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Garuda Talk! 23:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]

Hi, I hope you had a great Christmas, and have a great 2025. (bit early I know but wanted to say it anyways). Crafterstar (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you! -- asilvering (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re: your email

[edit]

Hi asilvering. I don't see any need for a private discussion on the matter. From a quick scan, I don't see any issues like those that I revoked for. I trust your judgement to grant as you see fit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JJMC89. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deletion

[edit]

Greetings Asilvering, it was recommended that I bring this case that caught my interest to an administrator, so here I am! I've noticed the edit history of this IP user is entirely deletions of comments on talk pages about contentious topics, always without edit summaries. I tried asking them about it on their talk page and received no reply, and I notice they've done it again since then. Do you have any intuition here? Big Thumpus (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a glance at their edits, it looks like their aim is to remove unconstructive comments about how Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Nothing really wrong with that, but I've left them a template warning about using edit summaries. -- asilvering (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asilvering&oldid=1265789504"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy