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. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
Hello Valeree, I wanted to message you about an article you reviewed a while ago and one I also recently worked on this year - Crumbl Cookies. I was going to write this on the talk page, but I took an unexpected wikibreak only to find that the article had been deleted. So I decided to talk to you directly about it.
First off, before you assume otherwise, I don't have any COI with the company nor did I intend to promote them in the slightest (I even deleted a revision from a user with a COI because it seemed unencyclopedic). I only worked on the draft because I saw sources about them on Google News from reliable outlets and thought their concept seemed interesting for an encyclopedia. I see reliable sources that talk about a topic, I believe it’s notable enough for Wikipedia.
I understood that the draft had been rejected due to a lack of notability-granting sources; it seemed that in 2021 it was clearly too soon for the company to merit their own article. However, a year had passed and more sources had spawned. I figured maybe it was time for the company to get their own article. In order to make sure it didn't seem promotional, I asked user Cunard about the draft to see if the sources established notability and maintained a NPOV. Cunard seemed to agree that the sources met NCORP and moved it to mainspace with a few edits, before you tagged it with multiple issues and proceeded to remove a large portion of the article, including claims properly attributed with reliable sources.
Look, I understand that as an administrator it’s your job to make sure that articles on various topics not only meet notability guidelines, but also remain verifiable and neutral. I appreciate editors like you who are vigilant on the uptick when it comes to this. But with the edits you made to it, and I say this with 100% good faith… I believe you went a bit too far this time.
I'm not going to question your authority on these decisions because I assume you also used good faith judgements when editing the article as well. However, it does make me wonder if you made sure to read the sources entirely before removing content. For example, I saw that you removed the claims of them being cited as the "fastest-growing cookie company," even though it was attributed to reliable outlets. Sources such as ABC News, Business Insider, Deseret News, Dallas Morning News and Today among others actually did assert that claim, explaining that Crumbl Cookies' growth came primarily through social media:
If it were just one source or a press release from the company themselves, then that claim wouldn't be valid to include at all. But seeing as how multiple reliable sources have stated this claim, it's not only verifiable, but a credible claim of importance that belonged in the article. I take it that you deleted such info because you perhaps thought a company gaining popularity through social media was inherently promotional and/or some form of advertising, and I understand. Companies have used Wikipedia for promotional interests all the time, and as an encyclopedia it's important to maintain objectivity when it comes to information like this. However, in this particular case your rationale was (in my eyes) a bit misinformed. Reliable sources HAVE objectively noted that their popularity comes through their usage of social media, akin to the example #3 on "Neutral, factual tone" of WP:PUFF.
I felt that instead of outright deleting the info, you could've perhaps taken the time to verify the sources first, then rewritten the material if you still saw it as promotional. I say this because there was more than enough information in those sources that you could have expanded on to maintain a NPOV (and I would've done such a thing had I not needed to take a break).
TL;DR: While I appreciate your efforts as an admin, I felt that your edits to the Crumbl article left a bit to be desired. The info you removed wasn't promotional nor unverifiable, and belonged in the article because it established their notability as shown through reliable sources. Regardless, thank you for your edits on the article anyways. I'm going to contact the user who deleted the article later on. PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you think we should take him to ANI? It seems like he won't stop deleting uncited "claims" no matter how many times we try to explain to him that it isn't the best solution to his problem. I'm trying to reach a middle ground on his talk (see section above yours) but he just wouldn't understand that he should try to resolve his problems without destruction. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:D401:B75E:4313:6C83 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Welcome back to the admin team. You are right: it's important to look after yourself first and foremost. WP is a hobby and volunteer activity. If it feels like pressure, something's not quite right. But I'm glad that after getting some perspective, you are back on the team. Schwede66 08:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Valereee,
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
((subst:NPR invite))on their talk page.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is User:Yleventa2. I have scrambled my password and removed my email, so there is no way to access my account. I just have too much going on to be able to deal with knowing that my edits are being tracked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yleventa2&oldid=1102329696#Log_in (Hopefully, this is not socking because I declared myself).
I remember when you volunteered to watch the Jonathan Mitchell (writer) page, where I have a COI and way back when I was User:Ylevental. I highly appreciate that! On your userpage, I see that you recognize that Wikipedia has a liberal slant. That is also good to hear. Also, I now definitely oppose Trump, though there was a while back in 2015-2016 when I strongly considered voting for him, but never did thankfully. 2620:8D:8000:1054:4767:C338:209C:DB3 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
A home page of Wikipedia (in 2014) displayed in a web browser.
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Diego • Retractable pen Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
|
Hi Valereee, I have just learned that you have had a rather serious wiki-break and am glad you are back. To eventual unpleasant moments I might have been involved I'd like to apologize. I have experienced your efficient and sound judgement repeatedly and I see you as an efficient sysop. Thank you for bringing order to wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Christmas market in Red Square in 2017
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Home page • Diego Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
Valereee (talk · contribs) and Xeno (talk · contribs) are appointed as co-moderators for the discussion. The co-moderators will jointly exercise the responsibilities assigned by the 2 August 2022 decision, which remains in full effect. The panel of three closing editors will be announced on a later date.
Wugapodes (talk · contribs) will serve as their committee liaison. The committee liaison will facilitate communication between the co-moderators and the full committee to ensure the process is carried out efficiently.
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the co-moderators for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Valereee,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Kyushu, literally "Nine Provinces", is the third-largest island of Japan's five main islands and the most southerly of the four largest islands (i.e. excluding Okinawa).
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Christmas in Russia • Home page Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
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 05:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
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 18:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove my proposal, if you wish. Sorry about jumping the gun. - Donald Albury 16:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
On 26 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crippled, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Crippled, author Frances Ryan describes a disabled British woman who was unable to afford heating or her specialist meals due to an austerity programme that began in 2010? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crippled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Crippled), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde 00:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
On 26 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frances Ryan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Crippled, author Frances Ryan describes a disabled British woman who was unable to afford heating or her specialist meals due to an austerity programme that began in 2010? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crippled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frances Ryan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde 00:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.
–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Kyushu • Christmas in Russia Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
For your work at User:Valereee/draft. At this early stage in the process, your real dedication to making this work is evident. As an ArbCom-associated process, it is going to take its sweet time to actually come to a conclusion, so I decided to give you something to sustain your energy. A sincere thank you for everything you have done so far, and good luck with the rest of the discussion—I know you can hardly wait for when |
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.
Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
Hello. I've added a 14th (!!) issue and solutions at that pre-RfC, with the aim of getting something that approaches a compromise/balance/fluffiness in there. I think I'm OK to have done that, but obviously do whatever you need to.
And thanks for taking this on. I don't know how pleasant it'll be, but I appreciate you doing so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand your request of "asking for unaffiliated reliable sources", but please use the right tags (if exist). The instructions on ((Third-party)) (focus on whether the sources are reliable such that the content is verifiable and neutral) and ((Cleanup)) (focus on non-content-focused issues) cannot lead to the solution of this issue. -Hijk910 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thanks for taking part in a healthy debate about sourcing (Talk:My Stepmom's Daughter Is My Ex). I like that you advocated for high standards on Wikipedia but still took the time to understand other perspectives and agreed to find a consensus to move forward. Hope to see you around! AlanTheScientist (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit: just a minor editorial note—the heading made me think the subpoints would be related to article creation and subject-specific notability guidelines. 1d and 1e seem to be deletion related though and none of them seem to be directly discussing subject-specific notability guidelines. None of this matters of course regarding the questions you are asking regarding having an order between multiple RfCs. I only raise it since although you didn't specify what the different RfCs would be about, the natural assumption is creation and deletion, and so the heading was a bit confusing to me as I thought it would align accordingly. However others might not have the same expectations. More generally, I appreciate your sharing of your thoughts in shaping the next steps. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee. The article for improvement of the week is:
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Cartoonist • Kyushu Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
Notes:
Note that these do attempt to exclude false positives from editors converting redirects created by the original editor, but some still exist, and this attempt does result in some false negatives. This is also the reason why a hard technical limit will be difficult; we will need some way to identify editors converting redirects into articles, and count those articles towards their count rather than towards the count of the original article creator. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Figured I'd put this here to avoid complicating things further. It seems to me it's worth considering the other approach to a complex problem: instead of combining/synthesizing a large number of questions to determine a solution, get buy-in for a specific solution which gets refined later. For some big RfCs we've had with lots of questions, some have been helpful, but some have also resulted in contradicting/incomplete results and a lot of additional drama. On the other hand, I'm remembering something like the NCORP rewrite, when someone did a big overhaul and rather than have RfCs to get buy-in on its various components, we had an RfC about whether to implement that whole version. This seems like one of those times when it may at least be worth considering.
So, for example (and I realize this differs from what I've written so far), something like below. If enough people think it (or something like it) is a good starting point, maybe a lot of the confusion can be avoided? Certain elements likely to attract a range of opinions, like the number of articles to set as a threshold, could be replaced with a variable to be determined through the RfC (but at least that separation in the RfC has no potential to produce difficult results). Food for thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
So you want to create a bunch of articles.
Does this guidance apply to you?
If the answer to all of these is yes, this guidance applies to you. (Note that even if the answer is no, if an uninvolved administrator has determined your editing fits within the spirit of these requirements, you will still be expected to follow them).
You must post a notice to [new venue to be created] with the following information:
[some additional work on how long these discussions stay open, who approves them, etc. could be added here or deferred to a separate RfC on process for that new venue]
Mass created articles must include sufficient sourcing to show notability, and cannot be based only on simple statistical databases. While there are no firm requirements about the level of quality an article must reach when created, many in the community have a strong preference for mass created articles to be more than one- or two-sentence stubs.
If articles are created after [date this goes into effect] that do not comply with these rules, notice should be posted at [the new venue] for review. An uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, and with feedback from the community, speedy delete the articles under [criterion TBD, but it should be one that allows refunds], draftify/userfy, or in unusual circumstances even keeping and requiring they go through AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
You are doing an amazing job at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. Thanks for moderating and hosting. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
@Vanamonde93, can you suggest wording? (I don't want to discuss the proposal itself in that section, as I'm really trying to get at whether we need two RfCs there, but I'd love to hear your suggestions on how it could be tweaked.) Valereee (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
On 8 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ring theory (psychology), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Silk developed ring theory (pictured) when a colleague said that Silk's breast cancer wasn't just about her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ring theory (psychology). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ring theory (psychology)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 22,166 views (1,847.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)