User talk:Interstellarity/Archives/2020/February

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

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept

Please accept Draft:2020 Australian Open – Day-by-day summaries. I just too late for minutes to add the source. For the record, there have been precedence of this article such in 2019 Australian Open – Day-by-day summaries and 2018 Australian Open – Day-by-day summaries. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flix11: Accepted. Interstellarity (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Saket Modi

@Interstellarity: I just noticed that you undid my edits moving the page Saket Modi to Lucideus without giving any reason. Saket Modi is a renowned businessman and has been featured in various leading publications. Google search result of him shows him being discussed by reputable publishers. I see the topic meets the WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV May I please know why you declined this entry.

Please provide diffs. Interstellarity (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd added content to the page titled Saket Modi and when I hit the publish button it went to pending for review and then my edits were reverted by you. I see the subject is quite notable. I would appreciate it if you could review and help me get it back up on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:6B9:EC5A:E8B8:5449:10D8:EE44 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I highly discourage that you do not do this. Creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. If you would like to create an article, please read H:YFA and create it through the Article wizard. Your article will be saved into the draft space which is where you can work on your article. It is not searchable by search engines. Once you are done working on the article, submit it for review and the reviewer will either accept (they will move it to the mainspace where articles are searchable through search engines) or decline the draft (the reviewer will state their reasons for declining). I hope this post helps a lot and please let me know any questions you have and I'll be happy to answer them. The Teahouse is always available to you if you have questions editing or using Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much Interstellarity. I have submitted the draft, I would appreciate it if you could take a moment and review it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.40.188 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I will let someone else review the draft for you. It may take months before the draft is reviewed. Interstellarity (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

After reading your comments and seeing people approaching you for their concerns, I must say you have a great deal of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. you're also an AF reviewer. I was just wondering if you take a few moments of your precious time to review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.247.53 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a community consensus that the article should stay a redirect. If you think it should be changed, please go to the talk page and make your case there. Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the draft I'd submitted has been declined by you stating it should remain a redirect. The subject was originally redirected to Lucideus in May 2019 by one of the editors due to lack of coverage. I see the subject has since received siginificant coverage in reliable sources and has been discussed in many reputable publishers including The Economic Times, Business World, India TV. I read the general notability guidelines, it does meet the requirements and is suitable for a stand-alone page per WP:SIGCOV. I would really appreciate it if you help me resolve this issue as you have been on Wikipedia for quite a long time and know the polcies better than me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.247.53 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to help you from here. Perhaps someone from the Teahouse can help you. Interstellarity (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say to the tea house. I am trying to determine the exact cause. What had gone wrong with the article, where and why was it decided it should remain a direct, why it keeps getting declined. More importantly what I want to know is what can I do to have the article reinstituted on a permanent basis. What options do I have? I would be highly obliged to you, if you could kindly provide a possible solution to the above mentioned issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.185.247.53 (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have linked this thread there. Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi 59.185.247.53. I've come here from The Teahouse as requested by Interstellarity, to see if I can assist. I'm going to try to answer your questions individually as I think a few different issues might be being crossed:
  1. "What had gone wrong with the article" - Interstellarity declined the draft on the basis of a lack of significant coverage. I haven't reviewed the article in detail but the problem seems to be that many of the sources are not independent (i.e. they are by Saket Modi himself) or they do not offer depth of coverage (for example passing mentions, or inclusion in lists). This is the main issue you need to solve if you wish to resubmit your article.
  2. "Where and why was it decided it should remain a direct" - I cannot see any specific consensus that this should remain a redirect, but Interstallarity may be able to point us to that. Otherwise, I would say this is something of a red herring. If you can demonstrate that Saket Modi is independently notable, then that will override the redirect. If you cannot, then the redirect will remain. So, focus on fixing the article and don't worry too much about this point.
  3. "why it keeps getting declined" As far as I can see, it has only been declined once. Perhaps you are also counting having your attempt to move it undone? If so, I would say that both of those relate to the same reasons given in point 1 above.
  4. "what can I do to have the article reinstituted on a permanent basis" - resolve point 1 above and then re-submit the article for another review.
  5. "What options do I have?" Your best option is to resolve point 1 above and re-submit the article for another review.
I hope this is some help? Hugsyrup 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: SamHolt6 declined the draft and said that the consensus was to keep the redirect. That's why I declined it. Please see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Saket_Modi&diff=913542730&oldid=913542453 Interstellarity (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: I see, yes. It looks as if an IP user deleted the previous review at some point [2]. It's best to reinstate it if you notice this happening as it maintains the audit log. But I still can't actually see any sign of this supposed consensus for a redirect at Saket Modi though. Can you point me to where this consensus is, or did you just take the previous reviewer's word for it?
To be honest I am not surprised that the IP user is a bit confused here. First you accepted the draft, so presumably you thought the sourcing was adequate? But then you reverted yourself and declined it, giving the reason that 'this submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article', so now you don't think the sources are adequate after all? And then your comment underneath says that the reason it's being declined is because of a consensus to maintain the redirect, which is a different matter entirely. My view is that, given I see no evidence of any substantive discussion leading to the redirect, if an article can be drafted that is acceptable to an AFC reviewer, there is no good reason not to move that article to mainspace over the redirect. If it is not acceptable to the reviewer, they should be able to properly explain their reasons. Hugsyrup 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: I took the previous reviewer's words when I declined it. You're right, I couldn't find a place where there was a consensus to keep the redirect. I think the article is acceptable for mainspace. What do you think would be the best course of action at this point? Interstellarity (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: up time you I guess. You don’t have to be the one to accept the article - I think it would be perfectly acceptable for you to take a step back and let someone else review it - you could even revert your review and thereby resubmit the article to the queue. Alternatively, if you are fully comfortable that the article should have been accepted, you could do so. I’ve never accepted an AFC over a redirect before so I’m probably not the person to advise on the technical steps to do so, but I suspect it would be best to delete the current redirect with template:Db-move and then accept the article as normal, thereby maintaining the history of the draft once it goes to mainspace. If you’re unsure, I would ask at AFC talk, though, as I wouldn’t claim to be an expert here. Hugsyrup 21:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: I reverted my decline and will let someone else review it. Interstellarity (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Interstellarity! You created a thread called Please see at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Fixing what's wrong

A lot of things went wrong because no one listened to experts and I can say I am closer to expert than most people in some of the ways but first things first dk .... Needs to find away to talk with me 2 contracts with her and still everyone is blocking me and her from talking f... Not funny so if you want your freedom back than change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelalva1105 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CUVA

Hi Interstellarity, I saw you removed yourself from the trainer list. When I started out, it took me a while for editors to ask me to train them and more than 70% of the participants would abandon the program half way into it even I have informed them there would be a lot of reading and assignments. Do not feel discourage as we are here to help Wikipedia project. You might want to reconsider after some months or next year to put your name back to the list. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: One of the reasons I dropped out was because that I wasn't interested in training users anymore. If I regain interest again, I will consider adding myself back in. Did you see this conservation with Girth Summit about this? Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looping me in. Understand the reason you have in hand. Focus on what you need to do in real life and come back when you decide to do so. Thank you very much of your contribution. Best. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Interstellarity/Archives/2020,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Jerry Kline article

As a newcomer, believing that it was true that anyone could edit an article as long as it followed policy guidelines, I made significant changes to this one at the behest of its subject, Jerry Kline. All the edits were vetted by him and, of course, were true to fact. Now that I've discovered this 'talk' feature, I want to respond to your comment: "Hello, I'm Interstellarity. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Jerry Kline—because it did not appear constructive." As it stands, the article is almost 10 years old, contains outdated information and lacks important new information, all of which was addressed by the changes I made. While I appreciate your taking the time to comment, if you again review the edits that I intend to re-introduce, please bear this in mind. Gmkff (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gmkff: Please feel free to undo my reverts without consulting me first. Interstellarity (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Tarea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tarea. Since you had some involvement with the Tarea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Madrastra" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Madrastra. Since you had some involvement with the Madrastra redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Padrastro" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Padrastro. Since you had some involvement with the Padrastro redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Suegro" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Suegro. Since you had some involvement with the Suegro redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Suegra" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Suegra. Since you had some involvement with the Suegra redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Comida" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Comida. Since you had some involvement with the Comida redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Bebida" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bebida. Since you had some involvement with the Bebida redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Desayuno" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Desayuno. Since you had some involvement with the Desayuno redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Almuerzo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Almuerzo. Since you had some involvement with the Almuerzo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 11:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Interstellarity/Archives/2020/February&oldid=1079170195"