User talk:Optakeover/Archive/2016/June
 | This page 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. |
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful Job: Bravo Zulu!
Many thanks!
Stumbling Monk (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Dutch
You marked the article Deep Patel as reviewed. I just wanted to tell you that it is a re-creation of an article that was deleted many times before and gets repeatedly recreated by the sockpuppets of Editor2626744 (Deep Patel, Draft:Deep K. Patel, Draft:Deep Patel etc.). You have to be more careful when doing the New Pages Patrol, and to report such cases to the WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: I am not aware of the case. I looked at the article and marked it as it appeared to me on its own merit. I will take note of that. Thank you. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: Can you please remind me what was the article about? Based on what I saw, including citations, and the notability of the article subject itself, I didn't think it warranted a CSD (that doesn't mean it it can't be proded or afded), and so even if it was a creation by a sock, that doesn't mean it is bad; therefore I really want to know what was it actually about, and what was the grounds of speedy deletion, other than it was a creation of a sock. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- There was no other reason for deletion except that it was created by a blocked user in violation of his block. There was one AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep K. Patel), but it was procedurally closed when author moved the article to the draft space. It was about himself as an author, with references. But, WP:G5 is a reason to deleted, and the way article looks like is not important if it's created in violation of a block. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: I appreciate the explanation. Thank you, and my sincere apologies. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 15:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- There was no other reason for deletion except that it was created by a blocked user in violation of his block. There was one AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep K. Patel), but it was procedurally closed when author moved the article to the draft space. It was about himself as an author, with references. But, WP:G5 is a reason to deleted, and the way article looks like is not important if it's created in violation of a block. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: Can you please remind me what was the article about? Based on what I saw, including citations, and the notability of the article subject itself, I didn't think it warranted a CSD (that doesn't mean it it can't be proded or afded), and so even if it was a creation by a sock, that doesn't mean it is bad; therefore I really want to know what was it actually about, and what was the grounds of speedy deletion, other than it was a creation of a sock. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Make-Up's made up Gospel Yeh-Yeh genre is part of their thing. On the bassist's page, one of her listed genres is Gospel Yeh-Yeh. I thought it was appropriate. I leave it in your hands whether you want to change hers or The Make-Up or leave it arbitrary. JasonCarswell (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: Thank you for your message. "Gospel Yeh-Yeh" is a genre that was created by the band itself and it's pretty obscure, so for Wikipedia I don't think it's good for readers by putting it in the infobox; however it has already been talked about in the article itself, that's enough of a mention in my opinion. Cheers, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not going to change Michelle Mae's genre? JasonCarswell (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: No I'm afraid not. That's because I don't agree with it. You are welcome to make the edit on your own, however. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I don't get it. (I'm new to this back-page talk stuff. I used to edit and never look back for better or worse.) Why it's appropriate on one page and not the other? I'm just trying to understand the arbitrary flow. (Maybe you can help me with my first failed attempt at a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Corbett_(journalist) ?) JasonCarswell (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @JasonCarswell: Oh sorry, I didn't know you were talking about another article. If you want tips on how to create an article, you can read Wikipedia:Your first article. Hope this helps. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm talking about all of it - seems so arbitrary and political, not that you've been political. Forget my first page attempt for a moment. What makes the genre acceptable for one page and not the other? JasonCarswell (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)