User talk:Cheesy poof

Welcome

Hello, Cheesy poof, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

BitConnect AfD

Rather than hassle Fuzheado with constant notifications only tangentially related to him, I thought I'd bring this question here: why is this BitConnect thing bothering you so much that you keep pressing it despite multiple experienced users explaining the process to you? I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm genuinely curious as to why it's irritating you so much that people might see the BitConnect AfD when googling for the site itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos I've already explained this a couple of times. I had just heard about BitConnect and all the controversy (it was recently exposed as a massive ponzi scheme and scam where people could not get money out) and I figured wikipedia would have a good summary of what was going on - but strangely when I googled: wikipedia bitconnect the only hit was the AfD page - I have a screenshot if you don't believe me - and it still happens sometimes fyi - I have no way of explaining googles pagerank algorithm. So after looking at the AfD which clearly stated the AfD was closed as Delete and that no further modification should be made (although at the bottom it said it was relisted and that comments can be made below the relisting line which I misinterpreted to mean that this was open to further info about it.) so I googled the news about bitconnect and saw there were numerous articles in credible news sources like Bloomberg, Forbes, TechCrunch and many more that were all talking about bitconnect so it was definitely noteworthy, so I went and summarized this on the AfD page below the relisting line.

The point is there was no clear indication that in fact the BitConnect page actually did exist - the one result from google was simply a page stating the article was nominated for deletion, the decision was delete and that was final. Also people keep saying that readers should know that because the font is blue instead of red, the article actually does exist, but that is an obscure detail of wikipedia that no one could possibly know the meaning of without being a fairly heavy user or otherwise reading the help files. The blue link is just the same color as every other link

My rationale is that if the result from google was the AfD page and not the actual article *for me* it is likely this happens more than once for more than one AfD page - usually on the internet, with billions of users things happen for multiple users. Also, I went through some work to try to research and explain why there should be a page and it just felt like a waste.

Finally, it just seems like an easy and straightforward edit and it would actually make the page more accurate. The specific use case I am thinking of (and there could be more) is: a user googles wikipedia [thing] google points them to the AfD page for which the decision is Delete, but the page has since been re-created or otherwise undeleted and now exists. The user just goes away, or goes away to do some research as to why there should be a page etc. The correct user experience would be that after landing on the AfD page with the result saying Delete, there is something indicating that the page has since been recreated, or undeleted. Or maybe just a link to the page for the most recent AfD or information so people can follow up - or even a statement that if the text for the link is Blue it indicates the page now exists despite the Delete decision, and if it is Red there is still no page.

To be clear I have no connection with BitConnect or anyone else (I'm interested in bitcoin tech and stuff but never got into it, I just came to this page because I heard of this scam and thought it is quite noteworthy and important for poeple to know about.) Cheesy poof (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explanation. Thank you for taking the time to respond. The thing is, the situation you're describing where someone googles something and finds the AfD instead of the article is a fairly rare edge case. I understand that it may have happened to you, but it's rare enough that we really don't need a policy or an exception for dealing with it.

As you've been told a few times now, AfD debates are kept as they were at the time they were closed because they form a historical record of a number of things - the outcome, the discussion process, the community's thoughts on the topic, etc. The discussion is over, therefore it is archived in place and not altered or added to (otherwise what would be the point of closing it?). The archive template makes all that fairly clear. I understand that you feel differently, but our policy is that closed deletion discussions should not be altered, and until that policy changes by community consensus, there is zero reason for BitConnect to be the sole exception.

Your decision to post in numerous different places asking the same question and arguing about what previous editors were telling you, seemingly hunting for a different response, was frustrating to the editors who took the time to respond to you. It appeared as though you weren't interested in listening to the very people you're asking for information from. Since this is a volunteer project, people find that kind of thing very frustrating - it takes away from the time those people could be spending on other things on the project.

We absolutely welcome new voices and new contributors, but when entering any new space it's usually best to try to listen to the people who work in that space. I would absolutely encourage you to contribute to the BitConnect article by adding information cited to reliable sources, but I hope you can understand and accept why the AfD will not and should not be modified. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have been listening to what people have been saying. I just have the impression I haven't made my point clear or they haven't understood. I definitely regret and apologize for posting in different places, I didn't realize this was an issue.

I will say again, I'm trying to actually provide user feedback and suggest a really simple thing to help make this more clear. It seems everyone has been coming down to the color of the text as the indication that the page exists so someone landing on the AfD can just click through, but as I mentioned there is no way of knowing the red links vs blue links thing, why not add a small note explaining this to help educate people and make the AfD page more clear and precise. this would not change the discussions or information in any way, and would not even have to be updated or contingent on the decision.

I should add, I'm a volunteer too, and while I haven't done much editing on wikipedia I have actually read a lot of articles and read through a lot of history and talk pages and debates and such. I have noticed that often times some editors and even admins just take a strong position on something and their ego gets in the way of actually making the right call or improving wikipedia, so I am persisting here. Also, if you refer to the comment by Lourdes, this user finally acknowledged the issue I am pointing out (what I was hoping would happen eventually - someone who was willing and interested in looking into this as a possible design flaw) and they pointed out that over the past few days there have been over 1200 views on that specific AfD page. I'm guessing that, although this is a relatively rare edge case, it is something that happens most frequently for articles that are just recently becoming notable (and many such items have AfD's since they were previously not notable) so everytime this happens, the google indexing problem and many users being directed incorrectly to the AfD page will likely happen. Again - just trying to help here, and in most software programs edge case bugs or design flaws are still considered bugs or design flaws and although they are definitely lower priority they are worth addressing (and could sometimes lead to uncovering other underlying issues - such as how google indexes wikipedia in this case) here's the link to the comment by Lourdes that I mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Relisted_AfD_that_ends_up_Keep Cheesy poof (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and also, I don't really care about BitConnect very much at all, I use wikipedia a lot and I had never seen something like this so I wanted to bring it to peoples' attention, that is my only motivation here. Thanks again for hearing me out! Cheesy poof (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (August 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DGG were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cheesy poof! Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science

Hello, Cheesy poof. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]