We need more editors like you. Thanks for all you've done, and I hope you'll change your mind and decide to stay. Jacona (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Jacona above, and I'll also add that you aren't obligated to keep contributing to the AfD if you don't want to (it is a lot, to say the least); you're welcome to unwatchlist it and find another bit of encyclopedia to edit. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both; it's not just one bad conversation, it's more that I've been questioning my faith in the WP project over the last months, and this has tipped the balance. I am increasingly convinced that there are very few areas of human knowledge that are untainted by human opinion and doubt. Wikipedia, by writing in an encyclopaedic style and hiding the authorship of its articles, is (unwillingly) representing material as far more trustworthy than it is, presenting the individual opinions of those who've written articles as though they were globally true facts. This contrasts with good secondary sources, which are attached honestly to the authors who write them. It's unfortunate that most of our readers believe what they read, without reading any of the sources we cite, which rather undermines the whole concept of having sources. We are encouraging laziness.

I'm increasingly convinced that the correct way to further human knowledge isn't a free encyclopaedia, it's (1) open access publishing, and (2) the plethora of websites set up by experts under their own names, pages hosted on their university sites, and suchlike. The second category is a weird one, because we at Wikipedia do not trust or use this material. In my view it's often safer to the reader than we are, because it's obviously the product of one traceable person whose expertise can be checked, rather than the product of a hidden person who is claiming expertise that cannot be checked. And it's often written in a far more accessible style (I have a long-running dislike of WP maths pages!).

All in all, I think most of our readers would be better served if they spent more time on Google and less on Wikipedia.

I'm going to take an extended Wikibreak and have a think! But thank you for your kindness.

62.252.211.177 (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altenau Palace, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Doric Loon (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doric Loon: thank you so much for accepting Altenau palace, doing all the tidying, and putting the redirect in place for Schloss Altenau. I really appreciate it. Elemimele (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: You're very welcome. Doric Loon (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 25 October 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albertus Antonius Hinsz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inreresting discussion over at the Teahouse about the US News list. Your comment made me more confident in mine; I'm still fairly new and not always certain... Thanks! David10244 (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best with a rewrite. Hope this helps. Thanks for the long post on the guideline. I will try to get around to a response, time permitting. Greenbound (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Lothar Abel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I thought he qualified on artist grounds that many of his gardens remain as important national monuments today, and also possibly on influence/author grounds on account of his publications still being widely available more than 120 years after their publication (which suggests lasting impact in his field), and the Musée d'Orsay considering him a sufficiently important figure to be in their database, but I understand entirely that he's probably pretty insignificant so I've added a speedy deletion tag. Elemimele (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	recently at the tea house. ✌️ It's Keya (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is a discussion to be had about the notability of lists, and where they turn from a simple, maintainable list into a database.

I think there is another discussion to be had about inclusion of vast numbers of, in this case, songs. It is likely to be obvious that just because we can do a thing does not mean we should do that thing. In the case of songs it seems to me that the song, as sung by that artist, should have itself pass WP:NMUSIC, and have its own article, perhaps with the artist as a segment of the song's article. Already it gets overly complex! Assuming the existence of an artil=cle the song is, ipso facto, a member of the list. But what of redlinks?

This suggests this might turn into a perennial lack of consensus if discussed, along the lines of the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

The creating editor is blocked for a week to allow them to or to catalyse them to consider how to work here. At the same time as the block was implemented and by coincidence, I lodged an ANI request for help (rather than sanction).

Are there articles at AfD and PROD to make a point? I hope not, the more so since I nominated a few and have opined in all. The question boils down to something along the lines of "What standards do we seek to maintain?" and only our community can decide the answer.

As an aside, might Wikidata, of which I have limited experience, be the right venue for database style lists? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I'm inclined to agree, and probably caused more confusion than good at that AfD. I'm over-sensitive to the great debate of delete-unsourced-on-sight versus improve-by-seeking-citations. I also worry about systematic bias, but I could have answered my own question: on the Robbie Williams list, nearly all the songs either have their own article, or belong to albums with their own article (i.e. it's a traditional Wikipedia list, with un-sourced entries pointing at well-referenced articles). That fits with your idea of notability of songs. I'm also unconvinced by huge, non-selective lists. Although we're not supposed to synthesise, I do think we're allowed to tell a story. Our readers expect it. Where a person has sung so much, it's better that we give the edited highlights, the songs that signpost her career (I think). But then, with sports-people, we often give tables of every result they produced, so who knows? I'm having a similar debate at List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, which, although it's supposed to be of notable accidents, had started to gather all sorts of minor bumps with little sourcing. I feel that there is a story to be told of improving rail safety, and how certain accidents led to big changes in rail technology, or were important historical events - but that the story gets lost and obscured if we include every accident. And the problem is that, like a song, a railway accident will always generate some sort of write-up, somewhere. Just because it happened, and we can source it, it's not necessarily such a great idea to do so. I don't know much about wikidata either. Elemimele (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern and southernmost items are also quite "exciting" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coppenrath Verlag, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: thanks for this. I had completely forgotten I'd even got it in draft! I'm glad it's okay, and appreciate your reviewing it. Elemimele (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you get another article stuck in AfC draftify hell like you mentioned in that ANI thread, feel free to ping me to have a look at it. Drafts with German-language sources tend to get stuck for obvious reasons. I won't typically touch science, sports, or current events (except for obvious declines), but I think you mostly edit elsewhere anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: thanks for that, I appreciate it. I don't do sports or current events, and don't intend to write anything from scratch in science (I work in science so I occasionally edit where I bump into something weird, but it's not my Wikipedia thing). AfC's one of those things that doesn't always work well, but it does a vital job of quality control, and I can't think of any better way to do it, given a volunteer workforce. It is what it is! Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lothar Abel. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rysum organ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norden. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think I should contribute a link to litoral gaslighting? EEng 23:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, possibly it'd be just a teeny tad untactful under the circumstances! But it made me giggle, so thanks! On the serious side, the reason I had a grump about that at ANI was (1) in my culture, "gaslighting" is a really serious accusation, so it should be taken seriously, even if the accusation is unfounded. And (2) everyone had just had a go at you for indulging in humour at ANI, so my Fairness Alarm went off when I saw someone else doing the same thing without criticism. To be honest, ANI is a pretty rubbish place. It's hard not to keep going back to watch, in morbid fascination, in the same way as it's hard to stop watching a really negative, bad soap-opera. ANI suffers from a drastic lack of professionalism. It reminds me more of a 17th C street fight than a dispute-resolution place. It's all mud-slinging and jibes, with people getting far too much pleasure from others' discomfort. I sometimes think that it would be better if people took their complaints to an uninvolved admin, not to a public board, with the admins having an admin-only board to which they can take questions for their peers when they're not sure what to do, or realise that they are conflicted in some way. But it'd be a lot less fun. And I seriously don't dare suggest it at the village pump. It's a very short walk from the pump to the pillory. Elemimele (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notice as the top of ANI suggests getting a friendly neighborhood admin to look at the problem first -- maybe this should be more prominently promoted. Also, I've often thought that one should be required to get a second editor to endorse a complaint before it's allowed to go to ANI -- though I'm not sure how this would work mechanically. EEng 08:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. how about this literal gaslighting? [reply]

from just being subscribed to one discussion there, it's pretty easy to see that most people around ani don't go there to see their suggestions denied

it's pretty disheartening to see discussions about civility and offensive wording getting increasingly uncivil, and drag on for way longer than they should

hate to say it, but i'd be fine with complaints there being handled on a somewhat less easily accessible public board. wading through all of them would still be a pain, but hopefully it'd filter out or avoid some of the more "discord politics channel-esque" discussions, and it wouldn't be just one person saying that the s word hurts their feelings

wait no i mean uh

ani is perfectly civil, you're both just seeing things cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read your suggestion with interest. Did you know that what you propose was requested about 10 years ago? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about how to mention sums of old British money is the sort of situation for which ((efn)) was created. DS (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't added a footnote at the moment because I think Hoary's version is reasonably clear, but if you think a footnote would help readers understand it, please do feel free to add one. I don't know at what point we assume no one knows what an old pound is anymore! Elemimele (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phalloides.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Heinrich Gottfried Trost, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

97198 (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elemimele, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken and fair enough most of the time. It might not change your mind in this case, but I will point out—if you were unaware—that MOS:DAB's policy on red links (WP:DABRED) isn't a blanket ban. It's a ban on articles that are unlikely to ever be written or that would likely be quickly removed for lack of notability. Islands off a major city and major Chinese weapon systems don't really count, even though Wiki's WP:BIAS, lack of English-language sources, and China's Great Firewall mean that these articles are hard to write for the rest of us and impossible for Chinese editors themselves to write. — LlywelynII 07:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]