User talk:Darren-M/Archives/2020/October

German National Socialist Party

How can a Socialist Party be called far-right? That makes absolutely no sense. Far-right is Anarchy. The Far-Fight are for less/no government control.

The Far-left is Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. The Far-Left are for more/complete government control. You see? The Nazis are Far-Left. Period. Fix that lie for me kay? Kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:C40:2939:5D16:3521:68EA (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@2601:285:C180:C40:2939:5D16:3521:68EA (talk), the relevant statement is extensively sourced and is covered in further detail at Nazism. Please see WP:VERIFIABILITY for more details. I trust this addresses your concern. Best, Darren-M talk 11:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Journey

The Journey music app for PS4 is available in play station store, i bought it there, I kind of new to wiki edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by SXeier (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Darren-M. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I do want to note one thing that gave me a bit of pause when reviewing your contributions, which was the slew of draftifications that you did earlier today. While most of them were nominally justifiable, I'd caution you against leaning on the tool too heavily, as it can be somewhat contentious, and is often seen as more BITE-y than a deletion nomination (as the latter gives a clear opportunity for a defense of the article and for other editors to step in more easily). Personally, I only send articles to draft space when I suspect COI or when the article is not only undersourced but also harmful (e.g. BLP issues). I'd suggest that instead of draftifying articles like Draft:Stamford History Center or Draft:Shota Hara, you instead tag them with {{notability}} and wait a few days before following up with deletion (or letting another new page reviewer do so). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thanks. The comment about draftification is interesting - I can sort of understand the reasoning but I see it the opposite way, in that it seems far less BITE-y to move an article to draft where they can continue to work on it in a more supportive environment, than for someone to slap an issues tag on it or tag it for deletion. I'm happy to refine my approach, but would be interested in if there is wider context I could read up on? Darren-M talk 17:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The underlying problem with draftification is that there's a divergence between its roles in theory and practice, and the community is divided on what its role should be. In theory, AfC should be a supportive environment for article creation. In practice, there aren't enough AfC reviewers to provide the kind of support that the process is implied to provide, and the regular operation of mainspace is a more reliable venue for collaborative work, since most editors are not digging through draftspace. While the initial move to draft is less bitey, working on the article and resubmitting it only to have it declined after 3 months is a very discouraging process that effectively segregates these new editors away from the rest of the editing community.

My advice here is partly based on my own opinions of draftspace and partly based on perspectives that I know are present in the broader editing community. While I do personally think that AfC has shortcomings that make draftify a less viable tool than it could be, equally important is that there are experienced editors who will raise hell if you draftify an article by a good faith editor (and who would not have the same response to an AfD with proper BEFORE). Your NPP experience will be much more peaceful if you use draftify sparingly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, thanks - that wider context makes much more sense. Darren-M talk 17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)