✒️ Happy to hear from you

31 January 2024   News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail Opinion: Until it happens to you Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2 Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]" Comix: We've all got to start somewhere Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

In your close you say, “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1”.

Please explain how showing every other “List of leaders of X” potential title or redirect for every U.S. state X is an unused red link is not sufficient evidence that “List of leaders of Georgia” cannot be commonly used to refer to the governors, or any leaders, of the U.S. state. Especially given that ”List of leaders of X” IS used to title articles for a significant number of countries, especially for countries on the part of the globe with Georgia.

Perhaps you missed the significance. If there was no U.S. state named Georgia, this article would exist at this title, undisambiguated. If the country did not exist, there would be nothing at this title. If that’s not sufficient evidence of PT1 for you, what would be? В²C ☎ 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do understand what you're saying here and there is strong logical consistency, and a solid analysis of counterfactuals. However, after analyzing the discussion in depth and including the opinions of all editors who supplied one, I did not have confidence that readers expectations would reflect that same logic.

For example, there were other logical arguments around consistency having to do with the consistent disambiguation of "Georgia"-related topics. As such, primarily relying on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions to determine primary topic didn't develop into consensus for a primary topic.

Beyond evidence based on Wikipedia policy/editorial decisions, for example, one editor linked to Google News as evidence of a primary topic, my own enumeration of results from their external link included many from both country and state, and the discussion didn't develop consensus around such evidence either.

I hope this helps clarify my thoughts. —siroχo 23:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, like many of the opposers, you seem to be conflating the question of ambiguity and particularly PT of “Georgia” with the ambiguity and PT of “List of leaders of Georgia”. Evidence of the former, though undisputed, is irrelevant to this title decision, yet you seemed to take it in account. Is that the case? В²C ☎ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took all editors opinions in the discussion into account. —siroχo 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't doubt that, but your finding of not "sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1", and particularly of weighing the kind of evidence of ambiguity that is present for any PT, as evidence weighed against the evidence for PT1, is puzzling. For example, I can find plenty of examples of reliable sources using "Paris" to refer to the town in Texas, the film, or the god... does that mean the city in France is not the PT for Paris? Of course not, and we can do that with every single title that has a PT on WP. Yet you apparently accepted such evidence -- citations referring to the governor of Georgia as a leader -- as evidence against this title having a PT. I don't understand that. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe we're speaking cross purposes. I am not arguing with your logic, I'm saying that in the discussion consensus didn't develop around your argument or any concurring arguments. —siroχo 02:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But saying consensus didn't develop in a discussion depends on how consensus is determined, and specifically to what degree the arguments are weighed with respect to their basis in policy. It's not clear to me you did that at all, much less how you did it. --В²C ☎ 04:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Many editors don't generally like extremely long closing summaries, and mine was already getting a bit wordy. I appreciate that you have a different preference. I'll try to help here.

Several policies were mentioned in the discussion. I'll try to list most of them.

• WP:MISPLACED and WP:NATURAL only matter if there is a consensus primary topic.
• WP:CONCISE won't really affect the outcome if there isn't a consensus primary topic.
• WP:PRECISE relies on "unambiguously defining" topical scope.
  • It's is part of the section of policy is titled "Precision and disambiguation", and the disambiguation section aka WP:QUALIFIER specifically requires a primary topic to avoid a qualifier.
• WP:CRITERIA refers to much of the above.
• WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT again only applies when there is a primary topic.
• WP:RECOGNIZABLE references WP:CRITERIA and also notes that ambiguous titles often aren't used.

Ultimately, editors in support and editors opposed were largely referencing the same UPPERCASE and making their claims based on their own determination of whether there was a primary topic.

Thus, the entirety of the discussion really did hinge entirely on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

WP:DPT suggests that determining whether there is a primary topic is up to a discussion by editors, that may be informed by evidence from a list of tools (I would of course also have considered any similar unlisted tool). It also provides some general principles. The only general principle that could have quickly led to a consensus result relies on Wikinav data which doesn't exist due to the pre-existing redirect.

The discussion alone didn't result in a rough consensus itself, so I had to more closely examine the evidence presented. I would have examined the evidence either way, in case it contradicted a hypothetical consensus, but in this case it was indeed the only possible remaining path towards determining a consensus. WP:PT2 is not helpful here. WP:PT1 is the remaining well-accepted path toward determining a primary topic, and given the lack of agreement, there was not sufficient evidence for PT1 to push consensus in one direction or the other, thus there was no consensus.

In the absence of a compelling reason to ignore all rules, I closed the discussion as such. —siroχo 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I think you missed the significance of the red links for every "List of leaders of X" for every single U.S. state X. The second tool listed at WP:DPT is:

• Wikipedia article traffic statistics (for the exact title of a page or a redirect) and redirect traffic statistics (for the total views of a page including traffic coming from its redirects).

The relevant article and redirect traffic statistics are 100% in favor of List of leaders of Georgia having the primary topic of the list of leaders of the country because there are no/zero/nada articles or redirects for "List of leaders of X" where X is a U.S. state. To say “I didn't see sufficient evidence provided in this discussion to satisfy WP:PT1” when ALL of the evidence supports one meaning in question and NONE of it supports the other (evidence of mere/expected ambiguity does not support the other) still makes no sense. I urge you to reverse your close accordingly. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your opinion and argument. I believe this is something that is very clear to you. I also see is that it's not clear in the same or a similar way to enough editors. I consider that different people's minds work differently, and the way they think will often be different from me and from one another.

I don't believe a consensus developed in the discussion, and given the comprehensiveness and duration of the discussion, I don't see a path for me to undo my close based on your request. My apologies. —siroχo 05:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, those links to a few news articles that refer to Georgia governors as leaders are just evidence of ambiguity, which is undisputed (that’s a given for any PT by definition), not evidence of one or the other being, are not being, PT. В²C ☎ 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to follow up on Born2cycle's point here I'm also baffled by your close. The evidence was strongly presented that the governors of the US state of Georgia are rarely denoted "leaders", and as such there is simply no ambiguity here, with a hatnote catering for the small possibility that someone meant governors of Georgia. Wikinav data is also emphatic on this. With a numeric majority supporting the move, and clear evidence as to why the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria were met, you can't really close it the way you did. If you had other opinions about it, you should have cast your own "oppose" vote. Please relist or reverse your decision. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I provided a more detailed summary of the closed discussion in this thread above, which you may find helpful. If you are looking to understand why editors who opposed the the proposal did not find the arguments or evidence convincing, I'm probably not the right person to discuss this with as I was and—outside of the close—remain uninvolved in this topic area. You might politely reach out to someone who articulated opposition after evidence was presented and ask what they would find convincing. If—or when—that evidence is available, you could consider starting a new discussion around the topic to present the evidence.

If I heed the guidance at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging other closures I would be at odds with community expectations changing the existing closure myself. All the best. —siroχo 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You found no consensus by either counting !votes or by weighing arguments.

If you did so by counting !votes you need to reverse your close.

If you did so by weighing arguments then that means you found equally strong (policy-basis-wise) arguments on both sides. I think you believe you did this, but you didn’t actually. I say this because when asked to articulate the strong arguments opposing the move all you have been able to come up with are arguments showing “Georgia” is ambiguous, which is not even in question. In other words, you believed you were weighing arguments but you were giving weight to oppose arguments that should not have been given any weight. In your 3 Oct comment above you ultimately fall back onto “I don’t believe a consensus developed in the discussion”, which is the case if you’re looking for agreement rather than properly weighing arguments. If the question was whether the moon was made of cheese and about half said they thought it was, and the other half cited scientific evidence to the contrary, would you say there was no consensus? Given that half are saying it’s cheese it’s natural to see no consensus. But if you’re weighing the arguments and dismiss the silly cheese arguments accordingly, then there is consensus. In this case all the arguments based on the undisputed ambiguity of Georgia are the silly cheese arguments. But rather than dismissing them, you seem to have given them equal weight. That’s the problem with this close. If you want to take this to MR we can, but you’d save the community a lot of time and effort by reverting or reversing your well meaning but misguided close. —В²C ☎ 21:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. Please feel free to take this to MR, if you feel that is best. Given that this is ultimately a disagreement about whether a primary topic exists, I do think an approach more likely to settle the matter is to collect empirical evidence of reader expectations (possibly from the DAB that was set up in October, if nav data is available for it), and construct a proposal backed by such evidence. Given what was stated in the discussion, if such evidence is presented, I imagine a rough consensus could develop.

I want to reiterate that I respect your understanding of the situation, and appreciate the thought you've put into your argument. Given your specific concerns in the comment above, I also want to assure you that I read every comment, and treated each editor's opinion with an appropriate weight. In the close, I noted that there was a numerical advantage in favor of the "supports". Ultimately the policy around primary topics and the relevant evidence provided meant the discussion did not reach a consensus, despite the numerical advantage "support" had.

All the best —siroχo 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Siroxo! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Harka (Maghreb) on a "All RFCs" 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 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said "Some editors consider it to misrepresent sources and lie, some describe it as propaganda." and then this was copied to WP:RSP. This is poor English at the very least. Perhaps you meant to say "Some editors consider it to misrepresent sources and published lies, some describe it as propaganda." To me it seems a mis-representation of the RFC as only one editor mentioned lies. Calling it propaganda kinda covers that in any case. Please consider rephrasing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think noting the opinions and evidence that editors provided around untruth is vitally important to the close as a deprecation. "Lies" and "lying" were mentioned by two editors, but "fake news", "willfully distorts facts", "republished a fabricated news story", "deliberate misuse of sources", etc, and other phrasing was used. I chose to summarize these descriptions with that "misrepresent sources and lie" phrasing.

While propaganda should cover all of that, I personally feel that it's a less well-defined term and could be seen as more opinion than directly calling out issues with truth.

I've slightly tweaked your suggested phrasing to "Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda." and updated it on RSN and RSP. —siroχo 20:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for rephrasing. The more I re-read the original phrasing, the more it did not seem that bad, but it did not seem quite right as well. It is hard to put my finger on it. My intuitive sense of English feels better at least. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - just thought I'd continue this here as a good faith comment, without overwhelming the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive utilization theory (3rd nomination), especially because this in practice does not have any significant effect (as far as I can tell). To my mind if someone sent an article to AfD without any text, this would be unambiguously CSK#1, whereas sending with "I hate this" would be CSK#3. CSK#1 notes: "failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion" - so "I hate this" is intelligible (so not 1), but is not an accurate basis for deletion (so 3). Anyway, FWIW, very much appreciate your contributions at AfD, always considered and constructive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. I do agree that in such a case CSK#3 is borderline, that's why I recommended keep instead of speedy keep, though I mentioned the CSK in case future editors endorsed and we could close before the 7 days. That doesn't seem likely at this point, and that's quite alright.

There is fair gap between something like "I hate this" and an impassioned "The article isn't useful", but I do think it's sometimes worth considering whether such a rationale for deletion is an "accurate" one. I think seeing the "usefulness" discussion fleshed out on the basis merits of the subject matter was, to me, a sign that it was more of a content discussion, which to me is generally not an "accurate" reason for deletion (outside of things like BLPCRIME and such).

I do believe I hear your general point here. The above is not meant to dig in my heels, merely to expand my thoughts given the opportunity. —siroχo 00:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect we align very closely and I hope this response is seen as just fruitful engagement. I guess I'd be somewhat "absolutist" here, especially noting the difference between an "intelligible" nomination versus an "accurate" one. So for me, I can "understand" when an argument presents itself as "it's not useful", but that's not an accurate ground for deletion, whereas I cannot "understand" (as in recognise) a deletion rationale when someone says it should be merged. Still, the practical effect is a difference with little difference in that the consequence remains the same, whichever side one's interpretation falls. FWIW, I used to find imprecise (inaccurate!) AfD nominations very frustrating, especially when they were from long standing editors/admins, but over time my views have changed. I think I came to look at it from the perspective of content creation - we make article creation (the process that is) remarkably simple, thus in turn, our process for testing notability should not be substantially of a higher order. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mentor how do I copy edit --Tyler Sane (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, Tyler Sane and welcome! Copy editing on Wikipedia is important, but can be quite daunting. I recommend starting simple: noticing and fixing clear spelling, punctuation and grammar errors is a good way to start. Eventually, articles should largely conform to Wikipedia's manual of style, but don't feel pressure to learn the whole manual up front. One possible area to begin learning is section headings: these stand out in articles as they are larger text, and the guidelines are a bit clear.

Now, you may have already seen some pointers to articles to copyedit, but check out Wikipedia:Basic copyediting § Find articles that need copyediting. However, if you like, you can simply start reading a section of the encyclopedia you're interested in and click through links, fixing what you come across. You can even use the random page link to browse randomly if you enjoy that. It's good to edit in a way you enjoy :)

Also note, if you try to fix a problem and end up getting reverted by another editor, don't worry. Wikipedia uses multiple varieties of English language, and we retain the existing variety, so someone might roll back a change for that reason, and there are other reasons too. It's not personal!

I hope this has helped. If you need some more general guidance than what I've given, the basic copyediting guide is pretty solid. Please let me know if there's anything more you'd like to ask. —siroχo 11:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of This Boy's Life: A Memoir at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vanessa Marquez on a "All RFCs" 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 20:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello How Do You Edit On Wikipedia? --SukhaXLilnoor (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @SukhaXLilnoor! Welcome. To start, if you'd like a guided introduction, you can check out Help:Introduction, or if you'd like to read a more in depth intro, check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. I'll also leave a set of links on your talk page that you can use if you like. Let me know if you need any further guidance. —siroχo 17:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia, Siroxo. You are a hero! 125.238.251.159 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! —siroχo 14:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i made an edit on the page but it got deleted .. why? --Salman Ali786 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. It looks like the edits at Sadiq Public School were not backed by a reliable source. To understand a bit about the need for reliable sources, you can reed about Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And also note, when claims are made involving a living person, the requirements for reliable sources become even stronger. I hope this helps! —siroχo 14:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No question currently. Thank you for being assigned to me as a mentor. Happy New Year to you! --CaliCanuck (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw JC Dugaurd hours after her kidnapping in Antioch CA. At KMart about 1 1/2 miles from where they found her living. I called every police station there is from Antioch all the way to Tahoe telling them to please check Kmarts cameras I called back every day for over a week. No one returned my calls. No one I was told not to say anything after she was found. I am so sorry I can't stay quiet any more. The police did not listen --Daineresly (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I just submitted the page "food noise" and am looking for clarity on next steps as I don't think it's published. --Alixweiss (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. How do editors find information on the topic of the page they are editing? Are there specific websites that should be used and/or avoided? Thank you. --Dan Dan the Milkshake Man (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ximuwu Safari Lodge: A Pioneer in Accessible Safari Experiences

Introduction: Hello, I’m Patrick Suverein, the founder of Ximuwu Safari Lodge, a unique destination among thousands of safari lodges. What sets our lodge apart is its foundational design, specifically created to accommodate wheelchair users. Known as WheelchairSafari.com, our lodge is a testament to accessibility in safari experiences, ensuring that every aspect, from the rooms to the main building, including restaurants and bars, is fully accessible.

Accessibility and Recognition: In recognition of our commitment to accessibility, the Tourist Grading Council awarded Ximuwu Lodge the highest level of accessibility in South Africa, a first in the country. Our facilities, including the game viewer and airport shuttle bus, have been customized by Braun Ability, featuring swivel seats and large loading ramps, catering to the needs of our guests.

Facilities for Comfort and Adventure: Ximuwu Lodge is equipped with comprehensive tools to ensure a comfortable stay. These include a pool lift, a bath lift, a mobile ramp, mechanical and fully electronic wheelchairs with height adjustment, bath chairs, and cooling vests for quadriplegic guests to manage body temperature. Our dedication to creating unforgettable holidays is evident in our efforts to provide thrilling helicopter adventures for wheelchair users, maintaining a 100% success rate in our first year.

Media Recognition and Future Plans: Our opening year garnered attention from leading magazines in the accessible travel industry. Notable coverage includes articles by Sophie Morgan in Conde Nast Traveler, as well as features in Skyways, Beautiful News, Trazee Travel, Signature Luxury Travel and Style, Africa.com, and Globetrender. Looking ahead, we are scheduled to appear in Cathay Pacific’s onboard magazine, further highlighting our unique offerings.

Question, is this an article worth having on wikipedia and how do we do this? --Wheelchairsafari (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Siroxo,

I was noticing that I hadn't seen you around on the project for several weeks. Your participation at AFD is very much missed. You were a thoughtful and conscientious contributor and I hope your time frees up and we'll be seeing you soon. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Siroxo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:CBS Jazz All Stars, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]