User talk:Dylnuge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hi, Dylnuge! I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. I noticed you've been on Wikipedia for a while but you haven't been formally welcomed, or written you any messages, so I'm stopping by to give an official hello and offer you some helpful links:

If you are unsure about what to do, but want to help out, take a task.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

If you need help immediately with anything, you can write {{helpme}} on your userpage or place a comment on my talk page. You may want to consider joining Esperanza, a community of wikipedians dedicated to encouraging fellowship and cooperation on Wikipedia. Don't forget to be BOLD!!!!--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget all those tasks up there[edit]

here is a real worthwhile one. I am trying to locate a list and a map and what ever else is out there of where Malvina Hoffman's statues are in the Field Museum of Natural History. When I was there I was not able to find out anything other than if I were to wander around a bit I'd find some of them and that others were in storage and could NOT be accessed. I am also getting readdy to expand the section of the sculpture of the building - by Henry Hering, so if you have any insights there, that would be helpful. Then . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... Carptrash 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October harvest[edit]

treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moody university.[edit]

I saw that you deleted my edit, on what basis what is factually inaccurate? I linked my source and I’m offended that you wouldn’t defend the right to be against the scourge of abortion. People should know the moral alignments of Christian universities. 98.240.249.28 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disputing the factual nature of the edit. Unless there's a specific reason the university is notable for its stance on abortion, that's not typically the kind of information that would go in the opening of the article, nevertheless the first sentence. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What’s notable is that you clearly did not check the source material. My alma matter makes it’s stance clear which is a distinct point of clarification from other universities with Calvinist roots which would be their peer organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.249.28 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the name sound familiar?[edit]

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/mocha-japan --Quisqualis (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that link appears broken to me Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, I lost the space following the link. It's about that article-spewing COI editor.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Certainly seems likely that editor is questionable and has some sort of undisclosed COI. I also can't really tell if they're advocating *for* or *against* some of the pages they brought up; seems like it's initially a "why is my ad not accepted when other similar problems exist on the wiki" that morphed into maybe defending those pages too. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I just wondering if you could please help me and give me some tips on editing and creating articles Number1stay4ever (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! Help:Introduction is a great resource for learning how to edit. You can always experiment with changes in your sandbox; you should see a link in the top right hand corner of every page (next to your username and talk page links). If you're trying to improve an existing article, you can copy the source into your sandbox and make intermediate edits there—this is a good way to test changes out (there's also a "preview" button on every page, but sandboxes let you save intermediate edits). Finally, if you're looking to create new articles, check out articles for creation. This is a process where you can make draft articles and then submit them for review by volunteers who will give you tips and help you improve the overall content. Note that any article on Wikipedia needs to meet some notability criteria. If you have any questions about anything, feel free to drop by the Teahouse to ask; it's monitored by lots of people and it's usually the quickest way to get a reply. Welcome again! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 19:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like you to help me fix the article Conflict on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border on September 14, 41 soldiers died there and people correct for 84 killed I am from Vorukh myself and I know how many died but at the moment I live in Russia Muhammad boboev (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Muhammad boboev, sorry but I've decided to not have any further involvement at that page. It's clear that there is a very contentious edit war going on and that pretty much no one seemed to want to engage in discussion. If you do want to engage in discussion, I'd use the article's talk page. For what it's worth, I highly recommend skimming Verifiability, not truth and bringing reliable sources into any discussion you have. You may have information that's not being covered in reliable sources currently, but there's no way for other editors to verify that information, so it's not the kind of thing that can be put into articles. Thanks, and good luck! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Chicago White Sox appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Very much not a sports expert or frequent editor in that area and wasn't familiar with WP:SPORTSTRANS. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Espada[edit]

On October 21, you added an unconfirmed report about Joe Espada being hired by the Chicago White Sox, saying it "looks legit". It was not accurate. This is why we wait for official announcements, not rumors. The page you cited has since been deleted by its publisher. (Also, the 69 vandalism should have been a hint that this was bogus.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu Uh, hi. I replied above where you templated me. When I reverted the change I checked to see if there was a citation available; found one from ESPN, and added it. This is a thing I do semi-regularly when doing recent change patrolling, since a lot of BLP changes are people trying to add legit information. I'm not a sports person at all and wasn't familiar with WP:SPORTSTRANS; I thanked you for reverting me *and* I thanked you for templating me above. I didn't start an edit war, didn't cause any disruption here, and actively appreciated the pointer towards sports source reliability being trickier during potential transactions. I'm...not sure why you felt the need to send this message (or to put a snarky comment in the edit summary). Is there something else I'm missing here? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD/Political editing on Wikipedia[edit]

Hey Dylnuge,

Regarding your comment on this AfD - can you let me know what overlap in content you think exists? I've taken care not to have any duplication beyond what would be expected from a WP:SPINOFF. Cheers! François Robere (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: Sure! I think the main concern I have here is how the divide between the two is formed. I think it's easier to illustrate with two examples. On Political editing on Wikipedia there's the statement In December 2019, Slate and other media reported on likely conflict-of-interest editing of US presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's article with cites to two sources ([1][2]). Based on the sources, the specific conflict of interest editing here was regarding Buttigieg's page appearing to have been written either by him or by a staffer or PR firm paid by him. In this case, the thing that makes this political editing is that Pete Buttigieg is a politician (the edits themselves don't seem to express a viewpoint other than the viewpoint that Buttigieg is notable; they're straightforward WP:PROMO self promotion). Meanwhile on Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia we have, regarding the Koch brothers, Under numerous usernames, NMS employees edited Wikipedia articles "to distance the Koch family from the Tea Party movement, to provide baseless comparisons between Koch and conspiracy theories surrounding George Soros, and to generally delete citations to liberal news outlets." In this case, though the Koch brothers are not politicians, the editing here is clearly meant to promote political viewpoints.
That said, while the distinction between political and non-political COI is not always obvious, I can see the argument for spinning off these articles given the size of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and it's clear on further review that there's not that much direct content overlap besides the WikiScanner content. I'm comfortable voting to keep the page given that; I think that there might be some debate over what does and doesn't belong on the page, but that's normal for pages dealing with political content anyways. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I was thinking about this in the context of a possible sub-article on commercial editing, or editing benefiting commercial entities. I agree the line between those different types of editing isn't always clear, but a distinction can nevertheless be made if one focuses on intent: was the edit meant to influence someone's political prospects, or to mitigate damage to a commercial entity? I think that as long as the basic distinctions make sense, then we can deal with edge cases as they arise. Worst case scenario? We have limited overlap and some {{main}}/{{see also}} templates, but the overall structure is clearer and the content more readable. Thanks for your input! François Robere (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Global Privacy Enforcement Network[edit]

Thanks again for your comments on the AfD page. I hope I didn't come across as being aggressive towards you. This is definitely about the most uncivil situation I've been in on Wikipedia, but that's not on you. I do agree that I've overdone the replies a bit, but we are where we are.

What I don't think I've done is to mix up verifiability and notability. The relevant standard is WP:NGO, which appears to require only WP:SIRS coverage and national/international scope. What frustrates me, and again not aimed at you, is that it's totally arbitrary to say either "OK, this is substantial" or "no, this is routine". Every line in that article except the number of countries and maybe one recent joiner can be written about from secondary sources. You think it's routine, I think it's substantial, two other editors blow with the wind, and the nominator thinks what he thinks.

Overall I'm disappointed by the AfD process, in both directions. It's so easy to delete an obscure article that's well-sourced and informative, and so difficult to delete stuff like promo pieces by people/orgs who can't follow WP:MOS but get in the press just enough to make it a close call. And rather than bring things to a close when a nomination is dubious, admins tend to renew and renew and renew, like Dickens' Micawber hoping something will turn up soon. IMHO the process isn't suited for purpose and, even though I think it's an important part of Wikipedia, it relies on a lot of good faith and good people's time.

I'd ask you to consider changing your opinion, but that wouldn't be respectful of your views or your time. But I'll say that as the sane independent voice in the discussion, you've probably sent this article to the dustbin and IMHO that's a shame.

Sorry to take up your time with all this, and sorry you had to get called a sock and other names. I have a theory about what got the nominator worked up, but no good can come of speculating. Oblivy (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for stopping by! For what it's worth, I hate deleting articles where there's a decent amount of content and someone clearly cares about the topic. It's not fun and no one feels good in the end. I'm never trying to get something deleted. I spent over an hour reviewing every single source you provided, conducted my own Google and ProQuest searches, and looked for anything that indicated notability. Scope creep did the same thing. That's two editors who tried pretty hard to keep this article. I realize it doesn't look that way when the result we independently come back with is "nothing here is WP:SIGCOV, and the organization appears to fall short of GNG."
My personal note here is that a lot of your responses feel less like responses to what other people have said and more like a bunch of new additional points to respond to and sources to review. This usually doesn't help your position: there can be a cascading effect where people respond to your new points or sources, and you add more, and the back and forth grows the discussion even further; you risk alienating the people trying to make reasoned points by adding more and more things for them to respond to; and you reduce the number of editors who are going to be willing to do all of the legwork needed to even jump into the discussion in the first place. I recommend forming your best argument for notability, as concisely and clearly as you can (and being concise is hard, I get that 😄), and letting it sit. That's also what WP:THREE is advising.
Regarding the AfD process in general, I'm sorry that has been your experience. Personally I trust the AfD closers a lot; I've never seen them look at something where four editors are arguing for deletion and two for keeping and just close it because the former has more !votes. They will review what we've said, weigh the policy arguments, determine if consensus exists, and close accordingly. XfD closers are not there to read the arguments, form their own personal opinion, and then enact that opinion. All they do is implement the consensus that has already been formed in the discussion.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a closer, I think you'll see that the main challenge for them is that this AfD is huge. Just reading all the comments thoroughly would probably take at least a good 15 minutes. On Thursday (Apr 27) there were 84 articles listed or relisted at AfD. For an AfD closer who has to review these, 15 minutes is a really long time—if only a single reviewer is going through just Thursday's listings, spending "just" 15 minutes on each of them would take 21 hours. The reason they are relisting is not because they are "hoping" someone is going to turn up and save the day, it's because they are looking at an argument that has no clear consensus and they need other editors to show up and do the work.
@Scope creep is clearly an experienced and dedicated editor with a long track record of work in AfD (pinging cause I prefer not to talk about someone behind their back). I think they got frustrated at the amount of back-and-forth and sources and responded in a way that, while I felt was a little hostile, was perhaps understandable given the amount of attention the AfD was taking from them. My goal was to de-escalate the situation and clearly I failed at that. At the same time, I'd ask you not to cast aspersions on them (or imply that there's aspersions you would cast). I don't think anyone in this discussion was acting in bad faith.
There's no need to apologize for taking up my time; I'm giving of it freely. I genuinely hope that this whole thing doesn't sour you on contributing to Wikipedia. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, we are where we are now, and I do have some regrets that I didn't handle the initial nomination more concisely.
As far as being an experienced and dedicated editor, I have seen jaw-dropping incivility from highly experienced editors, and I've seen that take down newbies who are clearly in the right. People like to see their opinions put into practice, and I think it spills over into bad behavior (and you can feel free to tag me with that as well).
On the other side, I've seen new accounts and anons who get down to work and make things better. Recently, a first-edit account made some incredibly insightful comments on Healthline which I took up and improved the article (at least nobody has reverted me or complained). Of course, that's not always the case, but I don't think the number of edits is necessarily the best measure of quality or good faith.
Wikipedia sours me on contributing, and it also keeps me contributing. Isn't that the way it has always been? Oblivy (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dylnuge/Archive_1&oldid=1172450389"