Asilvering

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Congratulations

Your new garb!

Dear Asilvering, congratulations on your RFA which I have closed as a near unanimous success. At some point you will likely get bored of scrabbling down the back of the sofa to find the appropriate block message to use, when or before that happens you might want to look at my monobook where some kind soul put some nifty code that makes a drop down menu of that. In the meantime where you new T shirt with pride. ϢereSpielChequers 08:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrats! Thanks for RFAing. We need more quality folks in the admin corps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Dang this is a lot of new buttons. -- asilvering (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done! Keep up the goid work. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What a nail-biter of an RfA, right down to the wire, but got there in the end! :) Congrats! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Lol; yes, you snuck in there, congrats! Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations! QuicoleJR (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the mop corps! That was even smoother than I expected; full credit to you for remaining calm and articulate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations asilvering! Happiest editing, Perfect4th (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, and especially thanks to noms Vanamonde93, czar, and Femke. Feeling very loved and appreciated right now. :) Will try not to let it get to me. Back to attempting to remain indifferent to both praise and blame... -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Asilvering! You were fortunate to have an uncontentious RFA. I'm sure that is due to your experience and having some great nominators. My own RFA was not so smooth and was one of the longest weeks of my life. It's nice to see that the community no longer puts admin candidates through the fire.

As for adminning, all I'll say is if you are unsure of taking a particular action (or not taking an action), do not hestitate to check in with another adminitrator who has experience in that area of the project, either by posting on their User talk page or via email. It never hurts to ask for a second opinion and it can help you from making mistakes, especially as you are finding your way. There are admins I still check in with to see what their take is on a situation I'm reviewing. Other admins are your colleagues and while opinions might differ, I have rarely found an admin who didn't offer me their opinion when asked. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations 🎊. What a smooth ride! My inbox and talk page are always open for questions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, Asilvering! That was some impressive score. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations...!!! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrats! You will do good works. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Parson's Tale and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

May he support your new mop related endeavors!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Torch Electronics

Hello, I've made the citation requests that you asked for. In regards to coverage outside of numerous legal issues there is very little. I would assume the company prefers to operate with little attention.Draft:Torch_Electronics IRT787 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Drat. A source unrelated to the legal controversies would have helped convince me it meets WP:NCORP - I'll have to have a closer look at the sources later. Thanks for resolving the cn tags. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering were you able to take a look at this? Looks like the article is still pending approval IRT787 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I think it's possible that someone may want to nominate it for deletion, but given how recent deletion discussions have been strongly trending towards keep when they're about subjects that are in the news for some controversy or other, I've just passed it through AfC. Thanks for the article! -- asilvering (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

Hello Asilvering:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Volga Boat Show

I know it's within your discretion to decline a CSD..... but that page is so blatantly promotional. Nothing in it appears to be encyclopedic. It had a whole section that was just unsourced positive reviews! In my new page reviewing I am trying to consider the impact of overburdening AfD discussions, and this seemed like a case tailor-made for a G11 outcome. My two cents. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I pulled the unsourced positive reviews, because yeah, yikes. In declining the G11 on this one I took the user's previous edits into consideration - the account that created it had made some apparently unrelated, good-faith edits in the years before creating that article, so I preferred to err on the side of good faith. It's also been in mainspace for a year already, so I think it deserves at least a WP:PROD. Having pulled the positive reviews I think it's now not so far from a hypothetical article created by a new user who just really likes boats that it requires summary deletion without any other community input whatsoever. I've checked zero of the footnotes, and I suspect there aren't enough independent ones in there to meet WP:NCORP, so I think you'd probably be able to delete it via PROD/AfD in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The length of time in mainspace is not relevant to G11. AusLondonder (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But the admin's judgement is. (Remember also that most speedy deletion tags can be removed by any editor, for any reason.) And in my view, when an article has existed for some time and is not an urgent problem or part of a pattern of abuse, it's best to err on the side of assuming good faith and involving community discussion. There's no harm in waiting a week for a prod tag to go through, and it's our stated policy that If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I did some of that editing on that article myself. I'm happy to delete obvious G11s, and have done so, but I chose to decline this one. -- asilvering (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Filmzene.net

Intrigued how you can look at an article in this state and conclude G11 doesn't apply.... AusLondonder (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You can stubify it as a WP:ATD - it was written 7 years ago by an editor who hasn't returned, so you're not likely to have any cleanup edits reverted. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No thanks, will take to AfD as it is clearly not notable. I'm not surprised they haven't returned given it was openly a single-purpose account, creating the page for promo. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did suggest AfD as a possibility when I declined the G11. -- asilvering (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Advising us that we should stubify as an AtD is an explicit admission that these pages qualify for G11: “pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles.” Stubifying a page like this leaves no encyclopedic content and thus proves eligibility for speedy deletion. And while I appreciate your desire to assume good faith on the part of these dormant single-purpose accounts, respectfully, it would be be nice if you could recalibrate your assessment of G11 to assume good more good faith on the part of active new page reviewers who are doing our best to reduce the backlog of unreviewed pages and minimize the burden of unnecessary AfD discussions on this community of volunteers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the "please make it easier on NPP" line of thought, since if you don't want to do an entire AfD discussion, you can always use WP:PROD, which is no harder for page patrollers or administrators to deal with than a CSD. I'm happy to recalibrate my G11 senses as required, so I've already asked some other admins about what I should have done in these cases. So far the response has been unanimous that I was right to decline them. It's possible all five of us are equally out of step, but I don't think the appetite of the community for summary deletion is very high. I certainly don't think your tagging has been evidence of bad faith; I just think that no one is harmed by waiting a week for a prod to expire on an article that has already been around for a year or even years already. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I took your edit summaries "consider AFD" to mean deletion would be contentious and thus ineligible for PROD. If you think PROD is acceptable as an alternative to G11, can you say so when declining? Otherwise the language, in the context of a declined CSD, implies you want to see an AfD should an editor believe the material is eligible for deletion. I do see several G11 declines and no G11 acceptances in your edit history, so I really do wonder if the calibration is right -- but I appreciate you asking other admins for their perspectives and will leave the conversation at that since it is discretionary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can do. As for the acceptances, you won't be able to see those in my edit history, because they've been deleted. You have to look in the deletion logs instead. Here's mine: [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking through my edit history, it looks to me like the only G11s I've declined that weren't drafts or draftified were these two, actually. So according to my eyeball math, that's a rate of about 1/15 that are "decline and leave in mainspace". I have no idea what the typical rate is to compare to that, though. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You declined my G11 of Guy Garcia, same reason. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad: that would be 1/10, then. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. And thanks for sharing your deletion log link. Promise I’m not trying to be a pill. Just disagreed about your decision and wanted to be sure I’m not wasting time CSDing things that admins are consistently going to decline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised at the decline of the Filmzene G11, especially considering the creation history, and also surprised to hear five admins agree with that decision. To me it seemed one of the stronger G11 cases. My log shows most articles I've tagged have been deleted in the past. Nevertheless as you say above anyone can generally remove a CSD tag for any reason. AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Of the two, it was the one they felt more ambiguous about. -- asilvering (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I find this discussion frustrating to read because your removals of the tags were 100% correct, but your explanations are not. Namely, you effectively said that we should assume good faith from Volga2018, who promotes Volga2015, and from Flzn, who promotes Filmzene.net, and that this means their promotional creations should not be deleted. If the content is unambiguously promotional, editors deal with it accordingly, and an assumption of good faith does not inform the decision on what to do with the content. If the right way to deal with it is to delete, then an administrator should delete it, in spite of any assumptions about mens rea. Assuming good faith here means assuming that these two promoters and any other creators of promotional pages are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. And they are harmful because promotional content harms the encyclopedia. The appetite of the community for summary deletion consistent with the CSD is tremendous, as evidenced in WP:CSD being a policy. ... So we should assume that they are merely promoting, simply to further their aims, not understanding that it is harmful, and that when they are told that it is, they will stop doing so. We have faith that they don't want to hurt deliberately. Whether the promotional pages should be speedily deleted is only about whether the content is exclusively promotional. The content was almost exclusively promotional, but it was fair to assume that a 20-year-old website and a big-looking event with boats and planes, about which we can retain 1-2 sentences, have the potential to be encyclopedic topics, and that the little non-promotional content that is able to remain is potentially fit to serve as the start of an article. I think that this is why the five admins supported your removal of the tags, and not because there is some changing trend about speedy deletion of promotional pages and because we should assume good faith from obvious promoters, and not because AGF indicates not deleting what has to be deleted according to the CSD. —Alalch E. 12:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I must have miscommunicated, because it was fair to assume that a 20-year-old website and a big-looking event with boats and planes, about which we can retain 1-2 sentences, have the potential to be encyclopedic topics, and that the little non-promotional content that is able to remain is potentially fit to serve as the start of an article is indeed my reasoning. What I meant by the AGF bits wasn't so much "policy-violating contributions are fine if they're in good faith" so much as "I don't see any compelling reason to use WP:DENY-type logic here to exempt this article from an obvious alternative to deletion, which the deletion policy states should be considered wherever possible". (Yes, I know that essay is about vandals specifically, but the logic seems equally applicable to spammers.) -- asilvering (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that should read "obvious alternative to deletion or community deletion process", since I do think it's quite possible that neither of these articles meets notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that you miscommunicated a bit. All good. Thanks for taking the mop. —Alalch E. 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Parson's Tale for comments about the article, and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

re Nazareth College of Arts and Science

Rather than G11, what would have been the correct way to tag to use for "Please move to Draftspace"? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@GhostInTheMachine, you can do that yourself, actually! The script I used to do that is User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, but you can also do it manually. The script is handy because it will generate a talk page message and also tag the redirect you leave behind for speedy deletion. If you end up needing to do this frequently, you can apply for "page mover" at WP:PERM - this will allow you to move the article to draft without leaving a redirect behind for an admin to clean up. Make sure you read WP:DRAFTIFY first, before you move any articles yourself. There are three especially important blockers to draftification to keep in mind: don't draftify something that's still actively being worked on (edits in the last hour), don't draftify something that's already been in the mainspace for a while (90+ days), and don't draftify something that's already been moved to draft before.

By the way, if you're interested in doing more of this kind of work checking on new articles, you may want to sign up at WP:NPP for page patroller rights. -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting thoughts. Note too sure that I want more Power, it often does not end well... I feel that it is often a Good Thing that a possible move is examined by two people. However, I will read up on the draftification rules and try out the MoveToDraft script — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha! Well, in that case it is wise to know where to draw limits for yourself. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on becoming admin here. My apologies, I missed your RFA due to some real-life issues. Regards! Maliner (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. :) There is of course no need to apologize for that! -- asilvering (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also wanted to offer my congratulations! I think you're very well fit for the role and will do an excellent job as an admin :) --Grnrchst (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from MyClassroom24 (17:06, 16 September 2024)

Hello, How can write a content? --MyClassroom24 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@MyClassroom24, welcome to wikipedia! Someone's already dropped by your Talk page with some useful links. You might also be interested to read WP:FIRST. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove an article from AFC process

Hello @Asilvering

Thank you for approving my article on Torch. I recently finished editing a biography page for the late Professor Kim Wang-sik, I didn't realize I was no longer forced to go through AFC can you please pull it as I have already moved it from drafts. Sorry for the technical mistake. Kim_Wang-Sik IRT787 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you sorted that out before I could get to it! Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on becoming admin here, Thank you for your efforts:) Youknow? (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- asilvering (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Smellorg (16:01, 19 September 2024)

Hello! I am a researcher in human perception of scents. I wonder how I find articles that need work in those topics, and how to browse topics in general? --Smellorg (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smellorg, I tend to find articles that need work by looking at the maintenance lists for various wikiprojects (I have some examples on my userpage). I'm not really sure what wikiproject "human perception of scents" would fall into, so my advice would be to search for concepts and topics you're familiar with and see what articles come up. I'm afraid you'll also have to change your username, or restart under a new one, since your current name implies that you're operating a corporate/organizational account. I'll leave some links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

my story

Hi would you be willing to look at my User page and see if what I added makes sense, is too corny, or should be organized differently? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, userpages are a matter of personal taste, so if you like it, I'd say that's the only thing that matters. For what it's worth, I don't think it's corny. If you want others to be able to laugh along with your fun edits and check out the pages you've created, you might want to add wikilinks where applicable? -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Should I add my drafts that are in limbo? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like to, by all means! Lots of editors keep a list of their drafts on their user page, or on a subpage of it. If you just want a convenient way to list all your drafts, you can link to a search like this: [2] -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing to note

Thanks for moving the draft into mainspace. But I wanted to ask, is there a bot that will usually put the content grade on the article automatically, or do editors add the grade themselves? Because I still see that it shows it's graded as a draft. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a bot - when accepted at AfC, the accepting editor gives it a grade. In this case since it needed a pagemover, I had to do it manually in a second step. (I didn't do it immediately because I got distracted.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for doing it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Re:City The Animation moved to draftspace

Thank you for informing me, but that was a page meant to be deleted and someone found their way into the page. I already moved and fixed what I needed to, I just need that other page gone. MushroomMan674 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@MushroomMan674 it's gone now, since I moved the version edited by others to draftspace. But if you're going to work on an article on the same topic, you should use the draft for now, and then move it to mainspace when it's ready. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question on a deleted article

Hello,

I am researching certain 2000’s musicians and am particularly focusing on women’s contributions to pop music in bands. In particular, I noticed an issue with a the Wiki page for Cobra Starship. I looked through the logs of the band once I realized that all the individual band members pages were removed, except for Gabe Saporta. What I find particularly worth noting while looking through the page revision history is that Victoria Asher used to have her own individual musician page, but it was deleted- this seems to be an unwarranted deletion, and I wanted to look into it further. I am not an admin and do not have access to deleted articles, but wiki data shows pretty comprehensive information on her. It seems very odd to me that her page was deleted and is now inaccessible (except for the Italian page). I would like to know if it is possible to review the deletion of that article, as the deletion for a notable figure and active band member does not seem justified. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially given the potential misogynistic or other reasons behind this. (I have no connection to this person whatsoever, it is simply a rabbit hole I went down while my 2000’s playlist was on shuffle- just to make sure I abide by the disclosure guidelines!) Natlaur (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Natlaur, Victoria Asher is a redirect to Cobra Starship following the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Asher. So the page isn't actually deleted - you can go back into the page history yourself and see what it used to look like. Here: [3]. I do think it's weird that she doesn't have an article, looking at what's in that one. We usually redirect articles on band members to the article on their band because they're only notable for their work as part of that band - it's best to cover them there. But it looks like she's a solo artist, and I'd expect some coverage of her related to that. That was a really messy AfD discussion, which certainly didn't help.

What I'd suggest, if you want to, is that you go look for evidence that she meets WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSIC on her own (that is, not as part of Cobra Starship). If you think you've found enough coverage, you can start Draft:Victoria Asher. You can go to this link, click "edit" or "edit source", and copy the whole text of the article into the draft, then work on it from there with the new sources you've found. If you manage to convince an administrator or AfC reviewer that your version shows enough new evidence of notability that wasn't considered in the previous discussion, we can then copy your version into the one in mainspace. Chances are, it will be nominated for deletion again, but that's ok; we'll get to have another discussion about it, and maybe it will come out as keep this time. But you will need to find good evidence that the previous discussion was inadequate for some reason - either that new sources exist that didn't in 2022, or that sources were overlooked in that discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Asilvering, this is a really helpful and insightful response, thank you so much! From what I was able to see on that truly messy AfD there seems to be a ton of conflict of interests driving the deletion of her page, seemingly around the time of the Brittney Spears trials (perhaps some of her fans, followers, or enemies who had some sort of agenda?). I will go ahead and start working on your suggestions to regenerate that page correctly (justice for Victoria! lol). In the meantime, I was wondering- is it possible to have articles un-deleted by admins? Just thought it was worth a shot:) Thanks again :) Natlaur (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the conflicts of interest: I really doubt it. The people in the discussion arguing for deletion are long-timers, and the people arguing for keep aren't. So, if anything, it was COI folks trying to keep the page. (It would be really weird for all those long-timers to be sleeper agents who have something against Brittney Spears.) It looks to me like the keep voters were trying to say that the coverage related to the Brittney Spears trials was "significant coverage", which it might have been, but unfortunately it would have been almost all of it from sources that aren't reliable. For biographies on living people, Wikipedia's policies are to use only the very best sources available when someone's involved in some kind of controversy or tabloid brouhaha, because, well, tabloids lie, and we don't want to magnify that harm. This does sometimes mean that people who seem very notable, because they're in the news all the time, don't actually qualify for wikipedia pages. The reason is that we don't have any good sources to use to write about them, and we don't want the articles to fill up with junk that might be untrue or even libellous.

Articles can be undeleted by admins in certain circumstances, yes. For this one, which isn't a deletion, what you'd have to do is something like what I suggested - have a better draft, or at least a good pile of sources, that manages to convince an admin that the previous discussion might have come to the wrong conclusion. (This normally wouldn't be necessary - but because this page in particular has been locked by an administrator, you'll have to convince an admin it's worth unlocking. It's best to ask the admin who put the lock on in the first place, which in this case is C.Fred.) For pages that have actually been deleted, the procedures are at WP:UNDELETE. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A cookie for you - User:Elixz

I did notice the age, when I was tagging it, and couldn’t figure out how to bring it up. GFYE was a good shout, and one that I really need to remember exists. I’m glad you got that mop. Haha. Good going, man. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time it doesn't exactly have the desired effect, but, well, one does what one can. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bae Youn-kyu

Hi @Asilvering, How are you doing today? You closed this discussion as delete when there is no consensus for that. I see userfication as the consensus there. Please may I ask you to reconsider and revise the closure. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

eh? I see only one clear draftify vote. The others are a draftify vote that changed to delete, a delete, and yours, which to me reads as "ugh, I'll take draftify if I have to, I guess, if other people think there's good reason?" I don't see strong support for draftification here, or any reason given why there's any likelihood that the subject will become notable in the near future. -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Iammni3bankz (17:03, 23 September 2024)

What Is The Best Way To Write A Biography For A Musical Artist --Iammni3bankz (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Iammni3bankz, welcome to wikipedia! I suggest reading WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. I'll leave some links on your talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Dear asilvering. I want to ask about my draft article. I added independent and reliable source to the article and fixed all the issues mentioned from reviewers. I really appreciate, if you can look at the article and give feedbacks about it. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Əhməd Qurbanov, I haven't gone through the references to check for sure, but I think you're probably going to be out of luck with this one. I'd be very surprised if a conference that's only run for two years met our notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, third edition of the summit will be organized this year. I add independent and reliable sources and I'll add more data about event. This summit is the such first event in the Azerbaijan about innovation and start-ups. So this is a notable event both in Azerbaijan and in the region. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Notable by the ordinary, non-wikipedian definition of "notable", yes. But I'm afraid that the wikipedia definition of notable is "has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources." (See WP:N.) That's really quite difficult for this kind of event. Don't let me stop you from trying, of course. I'm just not optimistic about it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of Wikipedia rules, of course. But this event is covered in the different independent sources. You can check it out in the references section of the article. Moreover, this event is mentioned not only in Azerbaijani sources, but also in the sources of other countries. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

How do i deal with conversations in talk that obviously do not apply NPOV??

In the talk page of polish areas annexed by nazi germany there is a topic called Sources published during the Communist era and people are just not very npov there, UnsungHistory (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, that's a topic from more than ten years ago. If there are outstanding npov issues with the article presently, please do deal with those, but that talk page conversation is very, very stale. -- asilvering (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Jordanrthomas9 (03:54, 25 September 2024)

I’ve just turned professional in the Motorsports field , I’m trying to create my page . --Jordanrthomas9 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Jordanrthomas9, if you've just turned professional, it's too early in your career for a wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Fan-made Kendrick Lamar movie

yes, it's a draft, but it's also a hoax. It claims that the movie was released in 2025. Meters (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't submitted, and I don't see any reason to believe it's a hoax (it wasn't even a correctly formatted infobox). Keep in mind that Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. If left as it is, no harm occurs, and it will be deleted in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean aside from claiming the impossible? In any case, per User_talk:TASALT#But I deleted this draft! it appears that this is now a G7 case. Meters (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that an unfinished and unsubmitted draft that contains nearly no text makes effectively no claims at all. If that editor wants to mark it for deletion they're welcome to, but it will also be deleted in six months via WP:G13, so there's no need to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a different perspective. Blatant hoaxes anywhere on Wikipedia can be speedily deleted under WP:G3. A draft saying that some fan film was released in July 2025 and the the music was at least partially recorded in 2025 seems like a hoax to me, since time machines do not exist, nor do fully functional crystal balls. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if it were a finished and submitted draft, I'd agree. Then it would be clear that there was some intent to make some kind of factual claim or fabrication. When it's in such an obviously broken state, I wouldn't say it has much in the way of meaning at all, certainly not meaning that rises to the level of "hoax". Maybe it's on its way to being a hoax, maybe it's a test edit, maybe it's a typo; since there's no way to tell and no reason to deal with it urgently, we can leave it be. -- asilvering (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from MihaTeod on User:MihaTeod/The food industry in Romania (11:03, 25 September 2024)

Hello, Could you please tell me if this article that is the English translation of an article in Romanian language on Wikipedia (Industria alimentară în România) can be transferred to the page of the original article as a translated version. What could be the usefulness of an article on this type of page (like this one: User:Miha Teod/The food industry in Romania) ? Thank you! --MihaTeod (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MihaTeod, the food industry in Romania is undoubtedly a notable topic, so you can move the page to mainspace yourself (Page--->Move, or press alt+shift+m). However, I would suggest doing some clean up on it first. There are a lot of dead links in the references, which makes it hard to verify the material. If you can't find sources for that information, it's probably best just to remove it. -- asilvering (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I have edited links, thank you for information, then I have tried to move the page without success, maybe I have no permission (not autoconfirmed account or something else..)

Thank you for support! MihaTeod (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have learned today that dead links might refer to those at references, like footnotes, not links on the text of the article. Sorry, I have not edited those links, I have to study and read more instructions to understand how could be done.Thank you. MihaTeod (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the ones in the references. In general there's not much use in translating an article from another wiki if you're going to leave in stuff that already has maintenance tags on it. As for moving it to mainspace, sorry about that, mistakenly thought you were autoconfirmed already. I've moved the article to Draft:The food industry in Romania and put an AfC banner on it - just press the big blue button when you've edited the draft some more and are ready to submit it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good morning,

Thank you very much for information and support! MihaTeod (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

How to add links in reference as a verified and reliable source for pages like Hyundai Creta, Hyundai Alcazar?

Hi,

I've been trying to add a source in the references section of Hyundai Creta, and Alcazar; but it gets removed.

Can you guide me on how to add? JosephFernandes0202 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@JosephFernandes0202, that's not a "verified and reliable source". That's spam. Please stop. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

that's an page about the cars.

the information gets updated through references.

how can we add our link in reference.

We don't want to look as a spam-ist. JosephFernandes0202 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not really any other way to put this: you want to put your link specifically onto this website, and that is spamming/promotionalism, and that is not allowed on wikipedia. We welcome contributors who want to help us build the encyclopedia by adding helpful references. We don't want people who want us to help them build their brand. This isn't the place for it. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the ZephyrMusic page

Hello @Asilvering, you indicated that text should be removed from this article, I think I already know what I need to remove but can you still suggest what I need to remove/improve, thank you SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@SparklingBlueMoon, there's a lot of really trivial detail in there that isn't really encyclopedic - is it really important that his dog died, and on what date? Do we really need to know that he plays music at birthday parties sometimes? What are the secondary sources actually saying about him? Reducing the amount of information in the article that's sourced to primary sources should help. It's really not clear at this point what makes this person notable. -- asilvering (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I will correct this, thanks for the clarification. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the elements that I deemed irrelevant, I think that the loss of his dog influenced him and caused the creation of a video and precipitated the release of one of his songs that was to appear on his album. Secondary sources say that he is a person who overcame his handicap to be able to play instruments and is known for his piano covers with the key to the realization of an album. Do not hesitate to modify the article to correct it. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New to GA

With a 10 GA threshold for the drive, all these years and I'm still new to GA. I can feel young again. CMD (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't overdo it! Wouldn't want to break your hip. -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

About to turn 8, plenty of growing still to do. CMD (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

More than twice my age! -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Malcolm B Collett on User:Malcolm B Collett (03:55, 26 September 2024)

Where do I post my bio --Malcolm B Collett (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Malcolm B Collett, welcome to wikipedia! I've left some helpful links on your talk page. If you mean "where can I post some information about myself", it looks like you've already found it - that's your user page. If you mean "where can I write an article about myself", we'd really rather you didn't. Please read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI before you try. -- asilvering (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it seems you have already tried, and the article has already been deleted, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Collett. -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

So who can write something about my background? What is the point of having a wiki page if you cannot add any info about the person. Adding or editing pages is very confusing. Malcolm B Collett (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there would be no point in having a wikipedia article that no one could add info to. But you don't have an article. You can write something about your own background on a social media site, like Facebook or Linkedin. For a wikipedia article, we require that topics meet the guidelines at WP:N. -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Joy provider (07:43, 26 September 2024)

Hello-why cannot i upload a suitable photo in a profile of some people which I have worked/updated? Thanks --Joy provider (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joy provider, I don't see any messages on your talk page about uploading photos, and I don't see any deleted edits in your contributions history, so I'm afraid I can't answer this question without further explanation. What exactly are you you trying to do, and when are you forced to give up? -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, I tried to upload a photo in the wiki page Keno Wallace and also another page that i have worked on and edited a few weeks earlier. I received this message "you don't have permission to upload this file".

Thanks again for your help. Joy provider (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I'm still not sure, sorry. Try WP:TEA? Someone might have an idea there. I just upload to commons.wikimedia.org directly, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleted article question

Hello asilvering and congratulations on your adminship,

I'm new here, so based on the invitation on your talk page, I thought I'd direct my questions to you.

There's a list article which was deleted about a year ago for reasons of notability. It came to my attention because I saw it quoted elsewhere online and I found that content interesting. I have found sources which I believe establish notability of the list. These sources predate the deletion discussion, but were not mentioned in the deletion discussion. After reading Wikipedia:Deletion review and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it doesn't seem obvious that either is the right fit. So, I have four questions.

1. Would it violate WP:CANVAS or otherwise be a bad idea for me to mention the name of the article to you here?
2. Does the age of these sources make it pointless or contrary to policy to ask for undeletion?
3. If not, what is the correct venue to ask for undeletion?
4. Independently of whether the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would be interested in reading its talk page and any archives of the talk page, as well as a particular revision of the article. Would it be appropriate for me to ask to see them either on your talk page or through deletion review, requests for undeletion or some other process?

McYeee (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The age of the sources doesn't necessarily make it pointless or contrary to policy - it'll depend on the sources in question and the deletion discussion that happened. If you give me the name of the article, I can have a look at it for you and let you know what the next step would be. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved problems in linguistics McYeee (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Generally what you would do here is go ask the deleting admin if they'd be willing to restore the article and move it to draftspace for you to work on it. In this case, the deleting admin is Explicit, so you'd want to go to their talk page first. But I think you might be out of luck with this one, since the primary concerns in the AfD discussion aren't actually about a lack of sources so much as fundamental issues with the topic, which is much more difficult to overcome. You might be able to rewrite the article as a topic rather than a list (eg, Unsolved problems in linguistics), or maybe you'd be interested to have a look at Category:Unsolved problems in linguistics. What sources have you found so far? -- asilvering (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

To answer your question, so far, I have found the following. I think they're reliable sources and I think they all containin lists of unsolved problems in Linguistics.

1. Open Problems in Linguistics and Lexicography
2. Unsolved Problems in Spanish and Spanish-American Linguistics
3. Open Problems in Computational Historical Linguistics which cites Weinreich et al. (1968, 183–187), refers to "the context of the “four questions” for evolutionary sciences proposed by Tinbergen (1963)" as applied to languages and another list "As yet another example for an attempt to systematize linguistic endeavor by stating problems, Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002, see Coseriu, 1973, 65f) suggested distinguishing three basic problems of language change".
4. Problems of Tungus Linguistics "From the great number of unsolved problems of verbal morphology the following should be mentioned"
5. Some unresolved problems in Cantonese grammar
6. The Samoan Sound System: Unsolved Problems in Theoretical Linguisics
7. SOME UNSOLVED RIDDLES OF LITHUANIAN LINGUISTICS
8. Problems of Theoretical Linguistics

Also potentially relevent are Historical Linguistics:Problems and Perspectives and Current Issues In Linguistic Theory McYeee (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're going to have trouble turning this one into a viable article with those sources - for one thing, I'm sure at least some of these "unsolved" problems have been solved since their publication! The better place to discuss most of these ideas will be on some more specific article (eg, Cantonese grammar or so on). I think you'll probably be disappointed by the state of this list - it's really not very good - but it might be useful to you. So what you're after here is use case #2 of WP:UNDELETE: to request that deleted content be "userfied", i.e., restored as a draft or emailed to you; this way, the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere. I'll save you the trip to the undeletion requests board and move it to your userspace. -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, you'll find it at User:McYeee/List of unsolved problems in linguistics. I resurrected the talk page for you as well. If you think you can turn this into a viable list article, you're welcome to try, but I'd advise you to use WP:AFC rather than moving it to mainspace yourself if you try that. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time here. Unfortunately, supposedly good version identified in the AfD wasn’t all that different from the current version. I’ll see if I can find some on-wiki use for any of the content, but I’m not sure how successful I’ll be. Thanks for letting me see it; you’ve restored my faith in AfD. McYeee (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hah! Cheers. AfD isn't perfect, but it is at least pretty reversible. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted

WP:ROPE almost always bears fruit. Thank you for your email. Understand your rationale for using it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320 Online events: New: Women in STEM | Geofocus: Islands I-P | Women in archaeology Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities October is Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" Good Article Edit-a-thon Tip of the month: Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for single-handedly cleaning up the mess created by WhiteReaperPM's sock. Your efforts are highly appreciated. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry you've been having to deal with it. I'm going to try to retreat back into my "blissfully unaware of Maratha history" cave for now. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:CT Group Viet Nam

Hello, I have removed all sections that were considered to be advertising. Please review the article again. Thank you. Nguyenkimgs (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, @Nguyenkimgs. I'll leave it in the queue for the next reviewer. -- asilvering (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood

I'll be more polite and helpful next time :) Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for CyberJoly Drim

On 1 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CyberJoly Drim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1998 cyberpunk short story CyberJoly Drim caused a controversy in the Polish science fiction and fantasy community? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CyberJoly Drim. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CyberJoly Drim), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hell0 again - wanted to get your opinion about an addition I'm about to publish for "John Kennedy (Louisiana Politician)"?

Wondering if you would consider this relevant - it's actually probably what he's most known for, and I of course have solid web sources for it. Just don't want to publish it and offend anyone but i don't deem it offensive (and I'd polish it more but this is the gist)...

Speaking Style

Kennedy is known for his pronounced Southern drawl and his "folksy" manner of speaking. He is also known for his occasional irreverent rejoinders during congressional hearings. In a 2020 BuzzFeed News article by Paul McLeod, Kennedy once said in a hearing: "Giving Equifax an IRS contract would be like 'giving Lindsay Lohan the keys to the minibar.' He once told a judicial nominee, “just because you’ve seen My Cousin Vinny doesn’t qualify you to be a federal judge.” Some colleagues who knew Kennedy during the Louisiana politics days claim he sounds different than the person they remember, prompting a 2023 article in The Guardian to ask the question: "Is his accent a put-on?", likening it to being somewhere between "that of Mr Haney, the con artist from the former CBS sitcom Green Acres, and Foghorn Leghorn, the cartoon rooster who appears in Looney Tunes." Mass communication professor at Louisiana State University Robert Mann said, “He plays the role of a clever hick who, while unsophisticated, is always quick with a put-down for smug city slickers.” Greg (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncommon for politician articles to have a section titled "public image" or something like that. You might want to rework this a bit so that it says a bit more about his public image beyond the accent. As for offensive, well, if you offend anyone with it, it's the same advice as always: go to the talk page and try to work it out. I don't see any reason why this would be offensive, but I'm not familiar with this politician and might be missing some dog whistle. I'd swap out the Lohan comment, though, myself. There's surely some irreverent rejoinder you can find somewhere that doesn't directly insult someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

thx - will further think/research appreciate it Greg (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may, Asilvering--Greg, this is going to need serious sourcing. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Below are two, there are more... it's pretty well documented, all his pithy retorts...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/john-kennedy-folksy-senator-act

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/23/senator-john-kennedy-accent-louisiana-mexicans Greg (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

i know they're not 'the new york times' but i would deem them credible. I think asilverings point about researching public image beyond his accent is good advice. i just happened to be watching a hearing today and realized this stuff should be included on his page, just have to figure out the best way Greg (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

More feedback welcomed

Hi. Thanks for your feedback. I would be happy to get more fee your feedback on Draft:Jishnu Raghavan. Firstly I would like to stress out the point that he has acted in more than 20 movies which includes around 5 movies in lead or supporting roles. Hence he passes WP: NACTOR. The problem in finding the sources is because of the way which the search engine index reacts. 90% of sources that shows up came after his death. Anyway for your easy convenience I will put some sources which I think don't come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. These citations are having bylines or written by staff editors and are published by leading publications in Kerala.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Besides this, he is eligible for an article as per WP:ANYBIO. He is a recipient of Kerala Film Critics Association Awards for his debut movie Nammal in 2002. As an actor, the subjects deserves an article. If you think the sourcing is still not good please let me know so that I can work on it. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think his notability is through WP:NACTOR, the draft should show that - I see that it says he's the lead of Nammal, but it's not clear about what other roles he was lead in. As for the sources you linked here, the Hindu article looks like it's probably significant coverage, but the others aren't. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have remodified the draft in a way that it shows that meets WP:NACTOR. Could you please have a look at it. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that has me a lot more optimistic. I'm not sure all of these roles are what I'd call "lead" roles, but WP:NACTOR just asks for "significant". I can see from these articles that he's been awarded or nominated for at least a couple of notable film awards, if you'd like to add those to the draft as well? -- asilvering (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination and the October backlog drive

Hi, I have a GA nomination in the queue waiting for a reviewer. The article is Bushy Park (New Zealand). Looking at the Target articles listing in the Good Articles October backlog drive page, I find that this article is listed under the heading "All other eligible articles". I only have a single GA credit at this point, so it seemed to me that the Bushy Park article should be included under the heading "Articles by new nominators (<10 GAs)". You will see that I have completed 12 reviews of GA nominations by others, so I have contributed significantly to reviewing nominations. I am now hoping to have someone review my nomination as part of the backlog drive. Can you please reconsider where the Bushy Park article is listed ? Thanks, _Marshelec (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asilvering, but a different backlog coordinator, and that seems to have been an error. You have only 1 GA so you fall under the new nominator category. I've fixed it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, just a mistake. Thanks for the fix, @Vacant0. If people find this drive theme particularly useful, we might be able to get this list made automatically instead of by hand, which would limit the goofs. -- asilvering (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you rethink the speedy deletion of A.m and P.m?

The reason why I made those redirects is because I made that mistake. I'm not sure what's "implausible" about forgetting an extra period. I didn't press the contest button because P.m has already been deleted, and I want both of them back. CheeseyHead (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, that counts as "useful to someone", so go ahead and recreate the deleted one, I won't touch it. I can't guarantee another NPPer won't nominate it for deletion though, since it's not just a missing period but also an irregular capitalization. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah, they're a.m. and p.m., Wikipedia just automatically capitalizes it which makes it look weird. CheeseyHead (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, good point. In that case, my mistake entirely. (Well, also the mistake of the admin who deleted the other page, I suppose.) Sorry about that. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

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

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please undo deletion of "Hairshirt Environmentalism" Wikipedia Page.

Hello Asilvering,

Please read,

what I have just written for You, in This Talk Page:

If possible, please undo deletion of:

Hairshirt environmentalism

Many Thanks.

Thursday 3 October 2024.

Michael Jenkins.

Ukmjenkins (talk)

Sorry Ukmjenkins, that article was deleted because it didn't meet our inclusion guidelines, which are explained at WP:N. You may find this link helpful instead (it was one of the footnotes on the article that was deleted). -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, thank You so much for Your Reply.

(1) I read and understand Your Wikipedia Principle of Notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

(2) In The UK, "Hairshirtism", is A Real Spoken and Written Neologism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

(I) With A Real Word Sense, that is Not Vague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness

(II) That is intentionally, critical and dismissive, of Valid Empirical Environmentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

(3) Please may I ask You, did You, in Wikipedia, decide:

(I) The Real Spoken and Written Neologism "Hairshirtism" is not Notable enough ?

(II) Or, The Content of The Article "Hairshirt Environmentalism" is not Notable enough ?

(4) I have written This 3 Page PDF Article on The Term "Hairshirtism":

https://ukmjenkins.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/hairshirtism.pdf

Please can You read My Article,

and please can You, in Wikipedia, please accept,

My Article on The Term "Hairshirtism", as Evidence,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

that A New Wikipedia Article on "Hairshirtism" may qualify as Notable, please ?

(5) Please can You, in Wikipedia, please understand, that I and Many People,

do need A Reliable Wikipedia Reference Article on "Hairshirtism", please,

that formally clarifies The Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

in order to be able to defend Environmentalism,

from Its Critics, who dismiss Environmentalism Concerns,

with Their Spoken and Written Word "Hairshirtism",

as if We, The UK Population, and The World Population,

have to accept Their Dismissal,

and have to intuitively understand,

The Correct Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

with No Vagueness, and with No Online Reference.

(6) Ukmjenkins (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your third item: yes, the discussion found that the topic, "hairshirt environmentalism", does not fulfil our notability guidelines. The link I already gave you was the source for the article, so you can use it as your reference instead. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque

Hi Asilvering. Would you add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque so I can understand your reasoning? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond here, since I can be more expansive here than in a closure, but if you still want me to edit the close afterwards, let me know and I'll do that. (Actually, if I recall correctly, I did make an attempt to write a closing statement, but the attempts came off too brusque, sounding too much like "Cunard's argument sucks", which wasn't at all my intent, so went without.)

Basically, what we have here is three deletes (incl nom) and then a substantial keep !vote and some substantial discussion but no further votes after that last keep. So before reading it, I was expecting that this would probably be a relist (to get some more input on the keep), but that it could plausibly be a delete, depending on the arguments. Looking at the arguments, I find that all three deletes say that the coverage is fleeting, and two of them specifically mention PR items. Moving on to the keep argument, it appears to me to be mostly made up of fleeting coverage and PR items, so that doesn't rebut the previous arguments very well. At this point, if that was the end of it, I'd either go investigate those sources myself and vote, or I'd relist and specifically ask for participants to determine whether the sources listed counter the arguments of the delete side or not. In this case, scope_creep already did an analysis of the sources, and it confirms my own impressions from reading the sections that were quoted in the AfD. There's some more back-and-forth afterwards, centring on the same issue. So, what that says to me is that we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered, but rather a difference of opinion on whether the sources are PR, routine, in-depth, etc. On that difference of opinion, the delete votes carry, 3:1. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the shipping Levesque? Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a Levesque who is in shipping, though I don't know if he's the shipping Levesque. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter J? Sure looks it.

If this guy isn't "notable", that says a good deal more abour Wiki and Wikians than him. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, notability as defined by wikipedia isn't really a statement about individual subjects. WP:42 has the short version. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. When there is robust discussion and notable disagreement in an AfD, I recommend always leaving a closing statement so that participants understand the reasoning. I found the lack of a closing rationale after all that discussion to be jarring. I consider "we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered" to be inaccurate. None of the five of the sources I linked—three of which were offline sources—were referenced by Oaktree b and Bearian in their statements. When I did a Google News search like what Oaktree b said he did, I was leaning towards supporting deletion too because I thought there were only PR items about him. Only once I did more detailed searches for sources did I find enough non-PR sources to support notability. My comment here explained the methodology of the Virginia Business source (the strongest source) and demonstrated it is an independent source. Only scope_creep and I had commented specifically on the sources I linked and we disagreed. The best option would have been a relist with a ping to the previous participants to ask them to review the new sources and to give more editors the opportunity to chime in. It seems that Qwirkle (talk · contribs) likely would have supported retention too based on their comments here. However, while a relist would have been the optimal approach, a "delete" close is defensible under the numbers and likely would be upheld at deletion review if I were to take it there. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover

Hi Asilvering. I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Travel and tourism, so I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover as "soft delete". Would you reconsider your close? Bearian was the only editor who responded to the AfD. He wrote "keep" in his edit summary and "a perfect example of where two people see the same thing and come to different conclusions, based fundamentally on their respective viewpoints". I think Bearian's bolding of "delete" instead of "keep" was a mistake under this context.

The article was undeleted and draftified to Draft:Layover based on an undeletion request from PK-WIKI (talk · contribs). The draftifier wrote "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Based on this response, I am not moving the draft back myself even though it was a "soft delete" close. I would prefer that draft is restored directly to mainspace since multiple editors (myself, Bearian, and PK-WIKI) think that layover is a notable topic and should be retained. Layover was also removed from a large number of articles so those links will need to be restored. It will be easier to restore those links now rather than later when intervening edits have been made. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you may well be correct that Bearian's comment was an error. But I'm not sure why you want a close overturned for a soft delete? It's already gone through undeletion and is waiting for improvement in draftspace. The process is working exactly as it should. -- asilvering (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be restored to mainspace without having to first wait for improvement in draftspace followed by further review. This is because it was soft deleted when an editor opposed deletion (while mistakenly bolding the wrong word). This is because the longer it takes to restore the article, the harder it will be to undo the removal of layover from a large number of articles once intervening edits have been made. I would have moved the article back to mainspace myself were it not for the undeletion message saying "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Cunard (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether the article is in mainspace or not has no bearing on whether those links can be re-added. You're welcome to add them back as you like, even as redlinks - actually, it looks like many of them will be blue links anyway, since they weren't linking directly to Layover, but instead to Stopover. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the AfD was closed as "soft delete", I've restored the draft to mainspace at Layover and asked for the 169 links to be restored. Cunard (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't ping me

I will not participate in the GA review (or any GA process) and will carry out actions which I am not comfortable with just to meet the requiremnts of the process. I want nothing to do with the article - don't keep pinging me to make me change my mind.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Was just hoping to clear up some confusion. Actually, I think you may have me confused with someone else, as I think I've only pinged you once? Would you like me to request that others avoid pinging you as well? -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for emailing me that source for the Barrett Watten article, and your help in maintaining the civility in the discussion surrounding it. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for your tireless work there too. It may not have been appreciated (alas), but it made the wiki a better place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Darrell Castle (2nd nomination)

I noticed that you closed the second nomination for deletion of Darrell Castle as merge. Only two voters solely expressed support for it while the vast majority wanted to keep the article and one deciding to redirect. Can this be reopened? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Er, I don't see a vast majority wanting to keep the article here. I barely see a simple majority arguing for keep, at the most expansive possible reading (and to get to that count, I have to take every "keep/merge" as a keep vote, and accept the IP vote as a keep also, even though it has nothing to do with any kind of inclusion policy). There's only one really substantial keep !vote (yours), which is countered by the later !votes and the previous AfD. Meanwhile, every one of the four votes that came in after the relist have support for the article being merge+redirected or simply redirected to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. That later end of the discussion looks pretty clear to me, and @Scope creep has already performed the merge, so I'm hesitant to revert all that and relist it. If you want, you could try WP:DRV? I think that's probably where you should have gone in the first place in June instead of removing the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fritschi circle

Hello, Asilvering. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fritschi circle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oversight

Thanks for the message. I had that taken care of a few years ago. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck out there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Asilvering for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How do i fix this

Talk:German Instrument of Surrender i sent the same thing twice due to confusion from slow internet,the "Date of signing"topic UnsungHistory (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to leave the duplicate, but you can also just edit the page and remove one of them, or revert one of your edits. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A WikiLove-cookie for you!

BrandenburgBlue has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

BrandenburgBlue_{Talk with me!} 13:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from King Rith on Shipunov 2A42 (06:58, 11 October 2024)

The King --King Rith (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)