User talk:HeartGlow30797/Archives/2020/September

Archives

_{View Decade} Archive 0

2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Next Year ^{To Subscriptions Archive}

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi HeartGlow30797! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:50, Thursday, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the DRN

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Good day, I noticed you have been volunteering to mediate at the DRN. And I wanted to maybe.... give you a bit of advice. Particularly in regards to the case on the Knoxville PD.... Letting the editors go back and forth often leads to arguments getting out of hand. You may have better luck if you structure the discussion more- askng questions and having them respond to you- not each other. Also- be careful of statements that make it sound like you will be making any kind of decision like this one "Diff's would be helpful to decide whether this is WP:AXE or WP:NPOV. HeartGlow (talk) 11:54 am, Today (UTC−5)" or "Both sides make reasonable points, WP:CRIME lends itself to be useful. It is not a burden of notability. You do meet the majority of the requirements for notability, IF you can find multiple news outlets covering one event. And this lends itself in a tricky situation, it is one event. Could we perhaps come to a compromise?. HeartGlow (talk) 1:24 pm, Today (UTC−5)" We cannot make or enforce any decisions- the only thing we CAN do is help find a compromise.

I'm not coming in as queen of the volunteers- Lord knows I'm not and I make a ton of mistakes myself.... just some friendly intention-ed advice! Best of luck! 20:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted! Heart ^(talk) 02:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature legibility

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello, just wanted to stop by and comment that part of your signature is extremely hard to read because it renders as pale yellow on white background. We have many editors here with visual disabilities, and/or editing on small mobile devices, so you might like to think about darkening the tone a few degrees - maybe a nice warm orange? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if using yellow (like I also do), it needs to be a darker yellow- I use yellow #ffcc00, and anything lighter than that doesn't show up too well. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, Joseph2302, I reckon yours could be deeper orange for better visibility, too. And, HeartGlow, I need to ask you: what on earth have you done to this talk page which has managed somehow to make the 'edit source' links against each topic disappear? I'm guessing you've done something wrong with one too many cot or cob templates, but I'm really not sure without playing around with it. But you might like to try to fix that, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, lol, I'll look into it. HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to convey similar concerns about the signature. To express this in numbers, the measured contrast ratio of your yellow on a white background is only 1.328:1, compared to the minimum 4.5:1 recommended in the WP:SIGAPP policy (Joseph2302's darker yellow is not significantly better at 1.511:1). The easiest solution for both is to choose from the list of recommended colors at MOS:ONWHITE.

I too would like to see the section edit links fixed, and you have been "looking into it" for ten days now. But that's secondary since I don't expect to be posting much here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I do not know how to do the edit section link? Could you please assist? HeartGlow ^(talk) 01:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Heart ^(talk) 02:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, fixed the issue. Heart ^(talk) 02:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being friendly and helpful at the Teahouse

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi there again. I'm really sorry if this sound like pile on - it's sheer coincidence - but I've spotted quite a few times recently where your responses at the Teahouse have been less than helpful to newcomers, and sometimes have potentially escalated problems by saying stuff like "Go to WP:ANI". It prompted me to go through every one of your interactions and responses with editors, and not once did I see you offering any of the standard "Hello, welcome to the Teahouse"-type of initial replies that we expect all our registered hosts to be giving newcomers. Did you not see that requirement when you signed up to be a Host? Curtly saying go to ANI or referring a user to read WP:ADMINABUSE is 100% the worst place to send any new editor (diff). In contrast to your own curt reply, that of Usedtobecool was helpful, understanding and explained a difficult situation really well (diff).

Responding just by telling a new editor to supply a 'diff' is, well, plainly ridiculous, and is not at all the Teahouse style we want. (diff) - we need you to be speaking to new editors on their level, appreciating their needs and lack of understanding of our ways, and not drive them away with gobbledegook. (You didn't even include a wikilink to help them understand what a diff actually is - but that's rather beside the point.)

It really is terribly important that you start to change your approach by developing a more friendly, and more welcoming and understanding response style in all your replies, rather than giving purely policy-driven, curt responses, as you've done thus far. Do you think you could try to start doing that from now on please? If you aren't sure how to do respond in a welcoming manner, I'd suggest the best thing is not to reply immediately, but leave it to others to give an initial, welcoming response, and then only to contribute with policy links if anything significant has been omitted. Hoping you take this advice in the spirit in which it is intended - that of ensuring all our Teahouse Hosts welcome, help, and retain new editors to the best of our abilities. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, my apologies, I will take this into consideration. I am very direct when offering help. Thanks. HeartGlow ^(talk) 13:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have been that - so thank you for your understanding and willingness to consider changing your approach. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, got it :D! HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One-click archiving noticeboard threads

Hi HeartGlow30797, please remember to allow at least 24 hours for a closed thread to remain on a noticeboard before using one-click archiving. This allows all users in all times zones, and with all sleep/work/log-in schedules, to see the result of the thread. The best way to ensure you have allowed at least 24 hours is to Google utc military time, subtract one day, and then do not one-click any thread that has been closed after that time and date.

On WP:AN in particular, it's best to leave the thread at least two days after close. There aren't too many threads on that noticeboard, and the threads are more important, so its best they remain longer.

Thanks very much! Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, got it! Thanks! HeartGlow ^(talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Please be mindful when you're commenting on unblock requests that you are providing accurate information. At User talk:Hauck&Aufhäuser you told the user that their proposed username is promotional. But per our username policy: usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc. This user's request seems to be exactly in line with our username policy and not promotional as you told him. only (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only, I will keep this in mind, and I said that i was worried. Thanks for your concern! HeartGlow ^(talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t express worry that it MIGHT be promotional; you stated it as if a fact that it IS promotional. only (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only, I will keep this in mind the next time! Thanks for commenting! HeartGlow ^(talk) 17:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiLove

TheDragonFire300 has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I never thought I'd ever be the subject of a WikiLove message, so, thank you for that. Though I probably won't take to full sweeping edits to articles or creations anytime soon, I hope that whatever community I come across here will convince me to stay for the long haul. I do hope that others will see the joy of a WikiLove message too.

Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi HeartGlow30797! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help on Draft Article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to fix your talk page

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi there. You still haven't resolved the issue that people coming to your talk page cannot edit individual sections. This is caused by the seemingly unnecessary and ridiculous quantity of collapsed, transcluded archives and other noticeboard pages that you have placed there. Anyway, I've been fiddling around with a copy of your talk page code in one of my sandbox pages (see User:Nick Moyes/sandbox5) and I find that simply removing the section that displays User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report fixes it ([1]). If all these nested collapsed pages are really needed, you would be better off having them on your userpage, in my view. But, either way, you must permit users to edit individual threads, just as they would on every other user talk page here. So I hope to see these sections editable again soon - and maybe then you could fix that almost illegible signature, too, perhaps? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, Works for now! Thanks! Heart ^(talk) 02:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might wanna see my first article

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi, since you answered a couple of questions while I was creating it, I thought you might wanna know that I finished my first article, Francis Saltus Van Boskerck. I would love if you could give me feedback on it because I have never made an article before. I know it uses one source a lot but I didn't really have a choice.

mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mossypiglet, congrats on your article! At a glance, it looks pretty good! Good luck editing! Heart ^(talk) 01:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sig sample

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Having eliminated the contrast problem, perhaps you could replace your entry at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial#Real-life examples? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Heart ^(talk) 03:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Special report: Paid editing with political connections

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

Featured content: Life finds a Way

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

Traffic report: Is there no justice?

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Special report: Paid editing with political connections

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

Featured content: Life finds a Way

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

Traffic report: Is there no justice?

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

In response to your comment, you don't give warnings to accounts whose recent editing history is continued-vandalism and nothing else. That's why for vandals who continue such behavior can get reported @WP:AIV via WP:Twinkle with the option of marking those vandal-accounts as "Vandalism-only account". Naturally, only newly-registered users display such behavior, and sometimes, admins go to straight-up blocking without giving warnings to those types vandalism-only accounts. Believe me, this is just routine reporting. Jerm (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm, I understand, but I highly believe in giving people chances to redeem themselves. I will keep this in mind though! Thanks and happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

What are you doing, and may I inquire as to why?

Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lido Learning as a Keep?
Why did you relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine?
Why did you close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Arianator as Speedy retarget?

The last one is only a curiosity, while the first one just makes no sense, but what I am really here for is to ask you to self-revert on the second one, as it matters and clearly you do not know what you are doing there. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first one had already been speedy deleted (by me). Revert your close. I will assume it was a mistyping.
The second one here was consensus against keeping the article that seems clear enough. Possibly it wasnt clear where to redirect it to, so you had some justification.
The 3rd decision is probably right, but not as a speedy.

Please be more careful. DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine, I believe that the NAC relisting should be reverted and that the decision on how to proceed should be left to an admin. Of course, as the nom I am an interested party, but it seems to me that there is a pretty clear consensus for deletion in the AfD, and there is no point in dragging it on for another week. The redirect target is much less important. The first AfD produced a redirect to the main Mike DeWine article itself, and it would seem reasonable that the same thing would happen here. Nsk92 (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a case of WP:BADNAC for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lido Learning. I can't understand why it was closed as Keep when it was Speedied G11. scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was certainly no case for a 'keep' close there, it's completely inexplicable. Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartGlow has edited three AFDs and !voted in one of them, so, now that I think about it, an admin should probably warn them not to carry out any administrative tasks in AFDs at all, per BADNAC#3. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, hey there, I think I dived in too fast and will instead vote and observe until I have received more experience! Thank you! Heart ^(talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect can obviously be recreated targeting wherever after the AFD is closed as delete which can then be discussed at RFD if there is disagreement on where to target, and that is why AFDs don't go on just to determine the target. Since DGG has the attention of the issue, I will happily withdraw from this, asking only that if the relist is to stand, the relisting comment be ammended as "unclear consensus" is absolutely wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for HeartGlow to respond. I want to remind HeartGlow that WP:ADMINACCT still applies to non-admins that perform admin actions such as closing or relisting AfDs, and it requires them to explain and justify their actions when requested to do so. If HeartGlow does not respond here, I'll probably revert the relisting of Mike Dewine AfD myself (unless DGG wants to re-close the AfD or to amend the relisting statement there himself.) Nsk92 (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, hello, so sorry for the wait, as I was sleeping! I do take full responsibility for these and will adjust accordingly. I saw that you have reverted the AfD for Mike Dewine! Thank you so much for your feedback and I will learn from this experience! Thanks and happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 13:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartGlow30797, wrong AFD, & wrong editor. Please be more careful. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, got it! THanks! Heart ^(talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartGlow30797: Thank you for your response. Regarding,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine. I would still prefer that you revert your relisting of that AfD (this has not been done yet) and let an admin decide what to do there. I could revert the relisting myself, and I can do that in a pinch, but since I am the nominator for the AfD, that would be somewhat problematic. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeartGlow30797 I see that you have removed the re-listing note from the Mike DeWine AfD, thank you. For the future, please, note, however, than when you do that, you also need to adjust the AfD logs accordingly that get automatically modified by Twinkle when the AfD is relisted. I have removed the relisted AfD from the Sept 30 AfD log [2] and restored it to its original place in the Sept 21 AfD log[3]. So now I think everything is fixed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the third, RfDs are also supposed to last seven days unless speedied. I would call that discussion SNOW not SPEEDY and that is why I am curious if it was appropriate to NAC it after only 4 days. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, hello! Thanks for letting me know about this! I will be more careful about doing this! This is my first time venturing into this! Thank you all for your feedback! Happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 13:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, Thank you so much! Heart ^(talk) 01:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Future Admins granting Permissions

I retracted my request for new page patroller due to recent events on 30 September 2020. Thanks! Heart ^(talk) 15:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImYourTurboLover

Can you train me in the Counter Vandalism Academy? ImYourTurboLover (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]