Hello, Dsuke1998AEOS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
THE LACK OF INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT DOESN'T RESOLVE FUTURE ISSUES IN COMBAT. DR. ROBERT DUNCAN INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT PEOPLE ARE INDEED TARGETED WITH. 137.103.143.242 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely curious
Thank you for your assistance at the various RFA venues. I have to wonder, though, how you managed to edit all of those pages within seconds of SilkTork closing the discussion, given that it was closed half an hour earlier than planned. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was expecting for you to close the RfA. It was only a fortunate coincidence that I planned to make the edits (in separate windows) about 30 minutes before the official closing time. I had the RfA in my watchlist, and when I saw SilkTork close the discussion I just clicked 'publish'. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Eh, ok. I will read your essay and if possible give an opinion on its talk page, though my gut feeling is that I will land on either the "Non-Endorsers" section or the section immediately below it. Cheers, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undiscussed page move
Re your move of the Philip Cross article, see WP:AfD: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Please don't do this without at least discussing it on the talk page first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dsuke1998AEOS. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of NTY (disambiguaton), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: These types of redirects are typically fine. Certainly not bad enough to be an R3. Thank you. BangJan199914:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind CSD'ing this redirect under WP:G7? It's not particularly helpful as the case can already be found by searching "Philip Cross" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases. Further, redirects like that are generally only created at the direction of Arbcom.
@MJL: Fine, I have done it; I wasn't aware of that last fact. Though I have to note that I seem to get myself in trouble whenever I make an edit related to that editor. :) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read your close, and even if we set aside 2:1 as "slightly more" (?) I'm wondering how you weighed the policy argument vs all the expressed subjective opinion. - jc3703:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: That nomination differed from the usual RfD discussion in that the redirects weren't judged by their merits, but rather by the editors' perception of them being a net positive/negative. As a result most comments on both sides were subjective to some extent, and it wouldn't be right for me to give more weight to those opinions whom I agreed with.
The strongest policy-based arguments for deletion came from Scyrme, who posted a personal account of their experience with ANI which can be considered evidence of the redirect being "discouraging for new users", but it isn't so extraordinary as to overrule the vast amount of "keep" !votes.
But I also agree that there were a few standout comments, like the one you noted, or like NYB's "Redirects are not meant to be used as a vehicle for editorial comments about aspects of the project.".
But all that aside, I was asking you about policy (and guidelines). A closer doesn't only weigh the "us vs them" subjective opinions in a discussion, they also need to weigh the discussion in relation to the broader policy. (Especially when discussion is mostly ILIKEITIT/IWANTIT.) There were several policy-related comments, even though some did not link to a specific shortcut. And then some that did link to policy/guidelines. And I'm also curious if you went to go look at the principles and finding of fact of those two arbcom cases that were quoted. - jc3719:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologize if my comment sounded confrontational, and have struck out the relevant part – I had jumped to conclusions based on your comment that largely sparked the AN thread.
That said, I don't see how the two arbitration cases that you mentioned have much relevance to the redirects. One had revolved around an editor who caused a lot of drama for chronic incivility, while the other was about an administrator who made a remark widely perceived as a personal attack and even as xenophobic. These cases are not in any way comparable to linking to a snarky and semi-humorous shortcut in a non-personalized context, mostly to make rhetorical points. Not even close. The existence of these redirects is only a by-product of so many editors perceiving ANI as an unpleasant place. That many of these editors want for it to not be a "cesspit" should serve as a refutation of the argument that the redirects are an extension of the toxicity they describe. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue that I experienced more than a little lack of good faith there, especially by those who apparently missed that I pinged everyone, not just those that opposed...
So, no, I'd like to think that I'm not what others may have wanted to portray me to be - c'est la vie I suppose.
And you don't need to apologize, all things considered, your response was and has been quite civil, and appreciated : )
Anyway, for the next part of your response, I do think you're teetering close to "supervote" territory, in that you seem to have accepted the argument that attacking a place where people come together is not an attack on the people who come together there. There was a disagreement on that in the discussion, to be sure, but you as closer probably shouldn't be making that determination on your own. Same for you accepting that it was "mostly" a rhetorical point that people were making. I might argue that actual usage might disagree with what the opposers were aver-ing about how they felt about AN/I. (See also User talk:Floquenbeam#Why_ask_for_objections? (not pinging at their request) for some possible additional thoughts on the subject of AN/I.)
All of which would suggest that editors shouldn't be doing what the commenters were saying they wanted to do with these redirects, in the way that they wanted, nor for the reasons they stated that they wanted to.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Just wanted to let you know that CSD tags can be reinstated if they are removed without explanation (as was the case here). This is completely different from PROD tags which can only be removed once. I've now moved the page to userspace and closed the nomination at RfD. CycloneYoristalk!18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a bit of a grey area. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when they are uncontroversial, so if someone objects then that's often a sign that the deletion is controversial and so it should be taken to CSD. However, this does not apply when the objection is not made in good faith, or (in many cases) when a tag is removed by the author. When a tag is removed without explanation and the original rationale objectively still applies (e.g. the only way to contest a copyvio is to show that either it isn't a copyvio or that it's sufficiently complicated that more investigation is needed).
In the case of a nomination for "this page was obviously created in error", the person who made the apparent error removing the tag should be read as them stating "this was not an error". Ideally they should explain why it wasn't an error, but if they don't the best first step is to ask them on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Folkism (disambigation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GTrang (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I've noticed you've been adding {{Interwiki extra |qid=Q13464290}} to the redirect pages of Chlaenius beetle pages. This has the effect of adding sitelinks to other Wikipedias to the redirect page. There is an alternative way of doing this, which has the advanatage that it also adds sitelinks to English Wikipedia from the foreign Wikipedias.
Add the sitelink to the Wikidata item for the species (at the bottom left of the Wikidata page). If you just add the page, you get an error that the list is already linked, but if you add a "badge" (by clicking the symbol to the right and selecting "sitelink to redirect") it will accept the sitelink to the redirect. page This method has the advantage that, as well as adding the foreign language Wikipedia sitelinks to the redirect page (which your method does), the species articles at the other Wikipedias get linked to the English Wikipedia (to List of Chlaenius species#Chlaenius species via the redirect page). I did this for Chlaenius katanganus (Q13464290) so you can see how it looks on Wikidata and the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Chlaenius katanganus). — Jts1882 | talk13:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was discouraged. At one time you couldn't make a sitelink to a redirect. You had to disable the redirect, make the sitelink, and enable the redirect again. But the Wikimedia software was updated to provide the badge method, which I take as acceptance of the need to sitelink redirects in some cases (e.g. monotypic taxa where one article handles child and parent taxa). — Jts1882 | talk15:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
