User talk:Asilvering/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Parson's Tale and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Parson's Tale

The article The Parson's Tale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Parson's Tale for comments about the article, and Talk:The Parson's Tale/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Please undo deletion of "Hairshirt Environmentalism" Wikipedia Page.

Hello Asilvering,

Please read,

what I have just written for You, in This Talk Page:

If possible, please undo deletion of:

Hairshirt environmentalism

Many Thanks.

Thursday 3 October 2024.

Michael Jenkins.

Ukmjenkins (talk)

Sorry Ukmjenkins, that article was deleted because it didn't meet our inclusion guidelines, which are explained at WP:N. You may find this link helpful instead (it was one of the footnotes on the article that was deleted). -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Asilvering, thank You so much for Your Reply.

(1) I read and understand Your Wikipedia Principle of Notability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

(2) In The UK, "Hairshirtism", is A Real Spoken and Written Neologism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

(I) With A Real Word Sense, that is Not Vague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness

(II) That is intentionally, critical and dismissive, of Valid Empirical Environmentalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

(3) Please may I ask You, did You, in Wikipedia, decide:

(I) The Real Spoken and Written Neologism "Hairshirtism" is not Notable enough ?

(II) Or, The Content of The Article "Hairshirt Environmentalism" is not Notable enough ?

(4) I have written This 3 Page PDF Article on The Term "Hairshirtism":

https://ukmjenkins.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/hairshirtism.pdf

Please can You read My Article,

and please can You, in Wikipedia, please accept,

My Article on The Term "Hairshirtism", as Evidence,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

that A New Wikipedia Article on "Hairshirtism" may qualify as Notable, please ?

(5) Please can You, in Wikipedia, please understand, that I and Many People,

do need A Reliable Wikipedia Reference Article on "Hairshirtism", please,

that formally clarifies The Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

in order to be able to defend Environmentalism,

from Its Critics, who dismiss Environmentalism Concerns,

with Their Spoken and Written Word "Hairshirtism",

as if We, The UK Population, and The World Population,

have to accept Their Dismissal,

and have to intuitively understand,

The Correct Word Sense for "Hairshirtism",

with No Vagueness, and with No Online Reference.

(6) Ukmjenkins (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your third item: yes, the discussion found that the topic, "hairshirt environmentalism", does not fulfil our notability guidelines. The link I already gave you was the source for the article, so you can use it as your reference instead. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque

Hi Asilvering. Would you add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Levesque so I can understand your reasoning? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond here, since I can be more expansive here than in a closure, but if you still want me to edit the close afterwards, let me know and I'll do that. (Actually, if I recall correctly, I did make an attempt to write a closing statement, but the attempts came off too brusque, sounding too much like "Cunard's argument sucks", which wasn't at all my intent, so went without.)

Basically, what we have here is three deletes (incl nom) and then a substantial keep !vote and some substantial discussion but no further votes after that last keep. So before reading it, I was expecting that this would probably be a relist (to get some more input on the keep), but that it could plausibly be a delete, depending on the arguments. Looking at the arguments, I find that all three deletes say that the coverage is fleeting, and two of them specifically mention PR items. Moving on to the keep argument, it appears to me to be mostly made up of fleeting coverage and PR items, so that doesn't rebut the previous arguments very well. At this point, if that was the end of it, I'd either go investigate those sources myself and vote, or I'd relist and specifically ask for participants to determine whether the sources listed counter the arguments of the delete side or not. In this case, scope_creep already did an analysis of the sources, and it confirms my own impressions from reading the sections that were quoted in the AfD. There's some more back-and-forth afterwards, centring on the same issue. So, what that says to me is that we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered, but rather a difference of opinion on whether the sources are PR, routine, in-depth, etc. On that difference of opinion, the delete votes carry, 3:1. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the shipping Levesque? Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a Levesque who is in shipping, though I don't know if he's the shipping Levesque. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter J? Sure looks it.

If this guy isn't "notable", that says a good deal more abour Wiki and Wikians than him. Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, notability as defined by wikipedia isn't really a statement about individual subjects. WP:42 has the short version. -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. When there is robust discussion and notable disagreement in an AfD, I recommend always leaving a closing statement so that participants understand the reasoning. I found the lack of a closing rationale after all that discussion to be jarring. I consider "we're not looking at a bunch of new sources that previous participants haven't properly considered" to be inaccurate. None of the five of the sources I linked—three of which were offline sources—were referenced by Oaktree b and Bearian in their statements. When I did a Google News search like what Oaktree b said he did, I was leaning towards supporting deletion too because I thought there were only PR items about him. Only once I did more detailed searches for sources did I find enough non-PR sources to support notability. My comment here explained the methodology of the Virginia Business source (the strongest source) and demonstrated it is an independent source. Only scope_creep and I had commented specifically on the sources I linked and we disagreed. The best option would have been a relist with a ping to the previous participants to ask them to review the new sources and to give more editors the opportunity to chime in. It seems that Qwirkle (talk · contribs) likely would have supported retention too based on their comments here. However, while a relist would have been the optimal approach, a "delete" close is defensible under the numbers and likely would be upheld at deletion review if I were to take it there. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover

Hi Asilvering. I follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Travel and tourism, so I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layover as "soft delete". Would you reconsider your close? Bearian was the only editor who responded to the AfD. He wrote "keep" in his edit summary and "a perfect example of where two people see the same thing and come to different conclusions, based fundamentally on their respective viewpoints". I think Bearian's bolding of "delete" instead of "keep" was a mistake under this context.

The article was undeleted and draftified to Draft:Layover based on an undeletion request from PK-WIKI (talk · contribs). The draftifier wrote "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Based on this response, I am not moving the draft back myself even though it was a "soft delete" close. I would prefer that draft is restored directly to mainspace since multiple editors (myself, Bearian, and PK-WIKI) think that layover is a notable topic and should be retained. Layover was also removed from a large number of articles so those links will need to be restored. It will be easier to restore those links now rather than later when intervening edits have been made. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you may well be correct that Bearian's comment was an error. But I'm not sure why you want a close overturned for a soft delete? It's already gone through undeletion and is waiting for improvement in draftspace. The process is working exactly as it should. -- asilvering (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should be restored to mainspace without having to first wait for improvement in draftspace followed by further review. This is because it was soft deleted when an editor opposed deletion (while mistakenly bolding the wrong word). This is because the longer it takes to restore the article, the harder it will be to undo the removal of layover from a large number of articles once intervening edits have been made. I would have moved the article back to mainspace myself were it not for the undeletion message saying "this would be eligible for deletion immediately upon its restoration" and "When you have done so, please do not move this into main article space yourself, but instead submit it for further review." Cunard (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether the article is in mainspace or not has no bearing on whether those links can be re-added. You're welcome to add them back as you like, even as redlinks - actually, it looks like many of them will be blue links anyway, since they weren't linking directly to Layover, but instead to Stopover. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Since the AfD was closed as "soft delete", I've restored the draft to mainspace at Layover and asked for the 169 links to be restored. Cunard (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't ping me

I will not participate in the GA review (or any GA process) and will carry out actions which I am not comfortable with just to meet the requiremnts of the process. I want nothing to do with the article - don't keep pinging me to make me change my mind.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to do so. Was just hoping to clear up some confusion. Actually, I think you may have me confused with someone else, as I think I've only pinged you once? Would you like me to request that others avoid pinging you as well? -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Darrell Castle (2nd nomination)

I noticed that you closed the second nomination for deletion of Darrell Castle as merge. Only two voters solely expressed support for it while the vast majority wanted to keep the article and one deciding to redirect. Can this be reopened? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Er, I don't see a vast majority wanting to keep the article here. I barely see a simple majority arguing for keep, at the most expansive possible reading (and to get to that count, I have to take every "keep/merge" as a keep vote, and accept the IP vote as a keep also, even though it has nothing to do with any kind of inclusion policy). There's only one really substantial keep !vote (yours), which is countered by the later !votes and the previous AfD. Meanwhile, every one of the four votes that came in after the relist have support for the article being merge+redirected or simply redirected to Darrell Castle 2016 presidential campaign. That later end of the discussion looks pretty clear to me, and @Scope creep has already performed the merge, so I'm hesitant to revert all that and relist it. If you want, you could try WP:DRV? I think that's probably where you should have gone in the first place in June instead of removing the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fritschi circle

Hello, Asilvering. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fritschi circle, 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) 09:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oversight

Thanks for the message. I had that taken care of a few years ago. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck out there. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

May he support your new mop related endeavors!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Asilvering for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How do i fix this

Talk:German Instrument of Surrender i sent the same thing twice due to confusion from slow internet,the "Date of signing"topic UnsungHistory (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to leave the duplicate, but you can also just edit the page and remove one of them, or revert one of your edits. -- asilvering (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A WikiLove-cookie for you!

BrandenburgBlue has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

BrandenburgBlue_{Talk with me!} 13:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)