User talk:Big Money Threepwood

AFDs[edit]

Hello, Big Money Threepwood,

I'm going to say this as politely as I can but you are giving low quality, drive-by votes in the AFDs you participate in. I can tell you've read the deletion nomination statement but it is not apparent that you have even read the article must less conducted a thorough assessment of quality of the sources in the article and I can tell you have never tried to look for additional sources to help establish notability. In your deletion nomination when you start an AFD discussion, you apparently forgo the required step of WP:BEFORE which requires the nominator to look for those additional sources and to provide a careful assessment of the sources that exist.

If you do not want to put in the time and effort to participate thoughtfully in an AFD deletion discussion, then please find other activities on the project to take on. Useless comments like "Delete per nom" or "Fails GNG" with no elaboration is just a sign that you are not taking the process seriously and most closers just ignore these remarks. You have now been participating in AFDs for a couple of weeks and I don't see any improvement in your contributions. Please raise the quality of your AFD participation or go do one of the million of other activities available to editors on this enormous project of ours. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Can you provide some independent reliable in depth sources on minor locations listed in the book of mormon? Thank you. I could only find Sunday school sermons and the occasional wp:fringe Atlantis theories. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you be willing to link me towards the policy that says we can't say delete per nom? I didn't make that phrase up, I saw it on hundreds of AFDs. Are you notifying lots of people delete per nom isn't ok? Should I? . Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you personally deleted *most* of the articles I nominated. I'd like to see some diffs of what you consider edits that may have been disruptive, if you have some. I didn't know that "outline" articles were a thing, so I did flub by nominating one. Thanks again for your follow up to these questions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's a lot to unpack on this.

Liz works very regularly at AfD and closes many AfDs, so it's completely irrelevant whether she's the one who deleted ones you nominated or !voted in.
'Per nom' is as she says pretty useless in most discussions (not just AfDs). Almost no discussion here is actually a vote (we often refer to it as a not-vote or !vote), it's a discussion, and your policy arguments matter more than your !vote. If you can't at least restate in your own words what you're dittoing, many closers may discount your contribution as a drive-by, especially when you're also voting Delete in nearly every discussion. No, there's no policy on that, although there is an essay at WP:PERNOMINATOR. You actually kind of make yourself look clueless when you vote like that.
It doesn't matter that you've seen other people do that at other AfDs. Those people may not be contributing thoughtfully, either. No, you shouldn't notify lots of other people who do this; you don't have anywhere near the experience to assess that behavior yet.

In general, it's best for newer editors to edit in article space, watch & listen in Wikipedia space. Participating in Wikipedia space at your level of experience is not likely to be very productive for Wikipedia and is likely to be actively counterproductive for you. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, how many years of experience is usual for participating in AFDs? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no level of experience necessary, and you're welcome to participate there. Liz is just asking you to participate more thoughtfully, and I'm saying that you might want to read there (or in any other Wikipedia space, such as noticeboards) for a while until you see what kinds of votes are considered productive. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee@Liz Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waters of Mormon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Book of Mormon places I see no evidence they did their due diligence or in fact if they are clear about the criteria for AfD or list articles. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually new to list articles. I imagined the list would need to be of a notable thing, backed by what Wikipedia calls reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any books about lists of places in the book of mormon that were not owned bybthe church. If you have some sources, that os great Doug! Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:LISTS. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precocious[edit]

Hi, do you have previous or alternate accounts? You don't seem like a new editor. ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a compliment. I've read a lot around here, but some people (see the thread above) think I'm too new. I guess I'm in the awkward haircut phase of not having a 10 year old account yet. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is that a no? Doug Weller talk 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a previous account on this wiki, but I have edited another wiki for a few years. Some of the policies here I'm learning to navigate, but the actual mechanics I'm moderately experienced with. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:The Trash Compactor an alternative account of yours? This account edited during in a period when User:Big Money Threepwood was inactive (March 25), in the same topic area, using similar or identical edit summaries (e.g. "Wp:undue"). The account's first edit was to !vote in an AfD you started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amaron, using "in-universe" to describe a religious belief, which you have also done, then went on to !vote in several more AfDs with the same "per nom"-type rationale that Liz warned you about above. Jfire (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

No, I do not have any alternate accounts. I did read the guidance on them after seeing it linked in a thread about other editors, but alt accounts don't seem to be applicable to me.

If you'd like to talk about the "per nom" I said, I would love to continue that conversation. Liz never replied. I looked at the AFDs I participated in, and users with over 100,000 edits were also saying "Delete per nom". It still isn't clear to me why I was admonished for what looks to be the most common way of saying "I agree with the nominator and don't have anything else substantial to add", but other users are allowed to say "delete/keep per nom". Can you help me find the policy on it? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they have the experience to know whether the nominator is right. You don’t. @Liz what do you think? Doug Weller talk 17:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you know about criteria for participation I haven't found. What is required to say "keep per nom" specifically? In the afd I mentioned, the 100,000+ edit user said it after I did. We reached the same conclusion. Same inputs, same outputs, but my opinion was called thoughtless and a driveby. Is there a test you can take to get a badge? Another user above said there was no time limit to start being able to edit. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire That account was also his, yes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoosadism revert[edit]

Can you help me understand why this is whitewashing? Subanark (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed pain to harm. Cigarette smoke is harmful, but not what people who enjoy hurting animals are into. Zoosadism is about pain, not harm. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, would the terminology used in Sexual sadism disorder extreme "pain, suffering or humiliation" be ok? Are the other edits I made acceptable? If not, can we take this to the page's talk page? Subanark (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building an Encyclopedia[edit]

Hey @Big Money Threepwood

I don't want to add to overall concerns, but I did want to understand more of your rationale behind your contributions here on the English wiki. I have seen several dozen AFDs all related to Latter Day Saint movement topics, and while some of them have removed articles that are not necessary, some of them have pushed too far (like the List of Book of Mormon places debacle right now). In addition, when I look at your contributions, I see a pattern focused on deletion, rather than adding to the encyclopedia. Overall, I hope that we are here to build an encyclopedia, rather than remove it. Many of the things you have been doing of AFDs, PRODs, redirects, and blanking and removing sections, are a pattern of things that we shouldn't focus on. I think that @Liz and others might agree with me when I suggest writing articles, or working on other things that you don't consider "WP:FRINGE". Rollidan (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how did you decide to come to my talk page today? I have had a lot of people stop by to talk in a short time period (under 24h). I'm actually not as active as I was a couple months ago, so it seems there must be another catalyst outside of my talk page edits today. Is there a conversation about me somewhere I could or should be participating in? I searched the inbound links to this page and couldn't find anything obvious.

As to rather removing parts of tge wiki that don't belong - I feel it is necessary. The wiki even has a set of processes around it, because it is needed. Editors can only perform so many edits. If they are updating categories on non notable pages, "we" lose actual meaningful edits to notable pages. It's a quality vs quantity decision. Wikipedia doesn't need unreliable articles that will never grow in my opinion. With the advent of large language models, Wikipedia will not have a funnel of new editors in a few years. Search engines won't be sending traffic here. In my opinion, it will be more useful to have reliable articles instead of a badly sourced page for every proper noun in particular books. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the pages that you have been working on are on my watchlist, and when these latest two AFDs showed up I thought to come here. I haven't had any conversations with anyone outside of those. I agree there are many cases where obscure proper nouns don't deserve a proper article -- I have redirected and PRODed a number of these articles myself. I agree that when many of these articles were originally created, the creator(s) maintained a certain amount of POV pushing. However, when someone comes along and does a massive deletion of content in that same sphere, it looks like POV pushing in the opposite direction. Does that make sense? In the process of seeking to clean up articles, rather than simply deleting content as WP:FRINGE, investigate whether independent sources can be found to substantiate what is being said. Also, rather than simply deleting every Book of Mormon place, why not redirect them to List of Book of Mormon places? As we already know, redirects are cheap. Rollidan (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]