User talk:Awesome Aasim/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page (new section).
Archive navigation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
 | Press Ctrl+F (Windows) or ⌘ Command+F (Mac) to find a discussion on this page. |
Altered speedy deletion rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanye West (2nd nomination)
[edit]Hello Awesome Aasim. I am just letting you know that I deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanye West (2nd nomination), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which didn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the creator voted deleted in the XfD, but it doesn't matter... Anyway, thanks @Ivanvector!
- P.S. is your username a pun on the Eigenvector? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I wanted this one to be explicitly noted as an attack page, because that's what it was, and it's not forgivable for being a "joke". G7 would allow recreation of the page, and besides it was probably not eligible because the page creator also has to be the sole contributor but many people commented on the discussion. And also yes, my username is a pun on eigenvectors! You may be the first editor to get that. It's an old inside joke from when I was in engineering school many many years ago and I don't really remember why now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
[edit]- From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions
- News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing
- Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid
- Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages
- Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
Your closure of Alphonso II RM
[edit]I believe your closure of the discussion at Talk:Alfonso_XII#Requested_move_30_March_2023 was incorrect. It is inappropriate to frame the discussion as a tension between "a guideline" and "policies" and therefore give equal or more weight to the latter, when the opponents did not provide almost any justification why those titles should be an exception to NCROY. Rather, the WP:NCROY "guideline" itself is a balance of CRITERIA, based on a broad editorial consensus that CONSISTENCY should be given more weight in naming of royals, as affirmed in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)/Archive 24#RFC: Regnal names RFC (which I implore you to re-read). Please reconsider your close, or consider relisting the discussion. Thank you. No such user (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll revert such close. Although I am not sure if it will elicit more discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
[edit]
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
[edit]You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Request not answered yet
[edit]Hi. Can U please make the changes I requested @ talk:windows 10 version history?197.26.181.38 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Module:Is subst
[edit]
Module:Is subst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Conflicts in windows 10 version history (as well)
[edit]Hi. Awesome Aasim, try involving users who participated in debates similar to this one.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version history
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windows_10_(original_release)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version 21H1 (Most especially. I don't know Y it has ended as a redirect)
As well as onel5969 (talk · contribs) and hey man im josh (talk · contribs).41.231.228.112 (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I want to make sure I do not violate WP:CANVASS which is why so far I have tried posting to places where I can get an opinion from an uninvolved editor. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 12:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
[edit]- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Request for edits
[edit]Hi Awesome Aasim. An IP user 2A02:2378:120C:C22D:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merged release histories to the page windows 10 version history. Unfortunately, another user has protected the page and I cannot revert its edits. Can U revert them for me please?197.238.82.68 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Consider it
Done. Other users should discuss on the talk page how the page should be organized and/or split. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep up the good work!197.238.82.68 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfriendly user
[edit]Hello Awesome Aasim. I have made a request @ wikipedia:requests for page protection/Decrease. However, I have received a response (make that two now) from a user who, I guess, did not understand my points, not to mention that response was unfavorable. What to do now?197.238.82.68 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we do not need to drop these titles' protection at this time. I think seeking consensus for splitting by time period would be the next logical step. You can try asking on the talk page of Talk:Windows 10 version history. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome Aasim, according to a policy, redirects are protected because the target page is protected. Those redirects would have been unprotected if toBeFree hadn't protected the page. Am I right? But my concern is those redirects are indefinitely protected while the target page is temporarily protected which is sort of mind-blowing. My point is, "when the protection expires for the target page, protection is not expiring for the redirects".197.238.82.68 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Which policy? Also, this isn't a counterargument to protection for other reasons anyway. Is there a specific edit you'd like to make and which is now prevented by the protection?
- While it wasn't me who protected these redirects, I do sometimes protect redirects indefinitely. I do so independently of the target page's protection status, and my protection summary usually reads like "Feel free to unprotect without asking, if this ever legitimately becomes something else than a redirect". This is because some redirects are less likely to be edited legitimately than actual articles, and protecting these redirects is more reasonable than protecting the target page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- To add on to @ToBeFree we only protect pages that are at moderate to high risk of vandalism or other disruptive editing. Certain redirects, for example, are protected because some editors have attempted disruptive splits without consensus, or have attempted expanding a non-notable topic. Also indefinite does not mean infinite, and if you were to use the {{editprotected}} to get the redirect changed or expanded, satisfying all Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is likely that not only would the redirect be replaced but the page would be unprotected. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I know those redirects were not protected by any of U. Rather, they were protected by nnadigoodluck and sportsFan007. But per Aasim's points, such page creations were made unsuccessfully, resulting them as redirects. Any thoughts on nominating both of those redirects for deletion? Because they are no longer notable nowadays.197.238.82.68 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- May I ask which redirects are you referring to? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Windows 10 version history (2015–2016) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Windows 10 version history (2015–2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- They were first protected by sportsFan007 by moves and then one of them had its protection settings duplicated from a draft by nnadigoodluck. BTW, during that time, the target page was protected by fvasconcellos.197.238.82.68 (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping @SportsFan007 and @Nnadigoodluck. @197.238.82.68 editing comments to include mentions will not add the mentions right back in. If you have access to the mw:DiscussionTools logged out, you can use that and you can use the @ symbol to ping a user in visual mode. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- May I ask which redirects are you referring to? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I know those redirects were not protected by any of U. Rather, they were protected by nnadigoodluck and sportsFan007. But per Aasim's points, such page creations were made unsuccessfully, resulting them as redirects. Any thoughts on nominating both of those redirects for deletion? Because they are no longer notable nowadays.197.238.82.68 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- To add on to @ToBeFree we only protect pages that are at moderate to high risk of vandalism or other disruptive editing. Certain redirects, for example, are protected because some editors have attempted disruptive splits without consensus, or have attempted expanding a non-notable topic. Also indefinite does not mean infinite, and if you were to use the {{editprotected}} to get the redirect changed or expanded, satisfying all Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is likely that not only would the redirect be replaced but the page would be unprotected. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome Aasim, according to a policy, redirects are protected because the target page is protected. Those redirects would have been unprotected if toBeFree hadn't protected the page. Am I right? But my concern is those redirects are indefinitely protected while the target page is temporarily protected which is sort of mind-blowing. My point is, "when the protection expires for the target page, protection is not expiring for the redirects".197.238.82.68 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors
[edit]You should probably stick to commenting on content, not contributors, especially on things like closing XFD's. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't see at all how the close statement was a personally attack, 1. It hasn't been 7 days and there clearly are some people who agree, so SNOW doesn't apply 2. The second sentence make it feel like a supervote. Locke, I think you might be a bit overreactive, especially when you have made an egregious attack you still haven't struck. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Locke Cole Citing WP:SNOW and WP:BLUDGEON is not a personal attack. All I said is let the RfC finish first before you decide what to do with that redirect. There is also strong consensus to keep; and having the discussion open any longer is not going to change that. Lastly, since you are WP:INVOLVED it is not a good idea to revert this close unless if it is a blatant — that is, no other editor would disagree — misinterpretation of consensus. If you feel strongly as to objecting to an early close, you are welcome to raise your concerns here, but there needs to be better arguments than "I don't like it". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, There are enough supporters to remove SNOW as an option, so I disagree with this close since it's too early. New arguments could still come to light. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu I'll leave it open then, but I don't think the actions surrounding the close reversal by the OP were the most appropriate. If the OP and others were to have asked and given convincing reasons why an early close was unwarranted I would have reconsidered the close, maybe even reverted it, and, failing that, WP:DRV exists. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW wasn't the problem, citing WP:BLUDGEON was. There were a number of very tenured editors completely tossing WP:AGF out the window there to make personal attacks, and your closure enabled them. Had you stuck with SNOW, while I'd have disagreed as Aaron did, I'd have left it alone. As I said in my initial message:
comment on content, not the contributor
. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)- Sure. Maybe there should be a reminder in BLUDGEON that this doesn't apply to replying with different arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided.
WP:BLUDGEON- Well, making false accusations anyway is considered incivil. Calling someone a disruptive editor or vandal or whatnot detracts from WP:AGF and the idea that we are all here to build a project. Similarly, calling someone "incompetent" is also incivil.
- One can reasonably remind people of interpretations like WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CIR without violating WP:CIVILITY. I probably should have given more detail into why consensus believes this essay applies. And taking a second look, I can see that bludgeon might be the least of editor's worries.
- Anyway, the discussion is open again, and any uninvolved editor may be welcome to take a second look at come to a conclusion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, There are enough supporters to remove SNOW as an option, so I disagree with this close since it's too early. New arguments could still come to light. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Locke Cole Citing WP:SNOW and WP:BLUDGEON is not a personal attack. All I said is let the RfC finish first before you decide what to do with that redirect. There is also strong consensus to keep; and having the discussion open any longer is not going to change that. Lastly, since you are WP:INVOLVED it is not a good idea to revert this close unless if it is a blatant — that is, no other editor would disagree — misinterpretation of consensus. If you feel strongly as to objecting to an early close, you are welcome to raise your concerns here, but there needs to be better arguments than "I don't like it". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
[edit]- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
Prolonged disagreement
[edit]Good day, awesome Aasim. I left an edit request and despite my efforts convincing users that they are best for page reduction without any visual changes, users continued to reject my proposal. Pls help!197.238.159.62 (talk)
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
[edit]- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
[edit]You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)