User talk:Humulator

Great job

Thank you for adding more transit coverage to roads articles. Sadly most of them have been written in a way that excludes non-automobile forms of transport, which I consider a form of systematic bias (intentional or not). Julius177 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is intentional, as you see on my user-page i really am interested in transit, and thats basically everything i do in my freetime.Edit after 2 minutes:oh your saying non-road vehicles not non-buses. The things I edit rarely have a train, chances are I missed a station/train or 2 while editing but I do know a lot about stations. Humulator (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Hi there. I noticed this edit, but I encourage you to read Wp:OVERLINK. You added multiple links to that article that were already linked and don't need to be linked again. We should only link to an article once if possible in an article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that, ill reedit it to not include too many duplicates. Humulator (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

It's unfortunate. Wikipedia didn't used to be this way, and in particular lots of articles on roads and streets have been purged. Notability requirements are very inconsistent from area to area. Jane Street is far more significant subjectively than a lot of bio articles on obscure retired sports players, in my opinion, yet there are thousands and thousands of the latter. It's one reason I rarely create new articles and when I do, I tend to stay away from roads altogether. A lot of it goes back to the debates around inclusionism vs deletionism, and unfortunately as edit volumes have become clustered around a handful of longtime users who are very familiar with the platform, the requirements become alienating to new editors. Certainly it's not the wild west of even 10 years ago. Unfortunately I think the tendency today is toward mass deletion of content, trying to purge the wiki of a lot of older articles, as a form of overcompensation similar to the trend today towards deleting poorly sourced content or articles rather than just giving them citation needed labels. Some people want Wikipedia to be Encyclopedia Britannica with unpaid editors, which is unrealistic and just encourages it to be a platform edited by a smaller number of people. It also does nothing to deter the epidemic of paid non-neutral POV edits (look at articles on some companies and individuals for example) or the bias in any politics article, where you can have highly motivated groups of people coordinate their edits off-site and create a false consensus.

I'm not sure what the solutions are. Not many people seem to acknowledge the issues and people who struggle with them tend to just quit. Personally I used to dispute AfDs where it was clear the people motivating them were against entire types of article and wanted to build "consensus" to have them all deleted, for genuinely unclear reasons. However the structure of the site and eg inactivity of certain WikiProjects leads to the people who think that kind of content should be on the site being uncoordinated, whereas a committed deletionist can just browse the list of AfDs and cast votes to delete every time. It's disturbing and confusing to me how many people seem committed to deleting content seemingly on principle. I don't know what they want Wikipedia to be but it isn't in line with the things I admire most about it. Many people seem caught up in the bureaucratic mindset, especially if they primarily participate in bureaucratic functions and seemingly rarely actually add content to the encyclopedia.

My advice is to keep editing, don't get caught up in deletion battles, and try to find areas that aren't "crowded" where a lot of content can easily be added. For example, I have a personal interest in archaeology, which in Ontario is very easy content to add, as much of it easily clears notability requirements because of the body of work mainly being academic journal articles. This kind of content is more "bulletproof". But that's just me following my personal interest and obviously I can't recommend edits on things you might have no interest in.

Good luck. I hope you keep editing. Julius177 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Line 6 Finch West, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

already do, assuming I use source. I used visual this time. In this case, after I submitted, I compared mine with the one before. The source looked like I added the Canada one when I didn't intend. so I removed it. Then I saw it was already there, so I reverted my edit. Humulator (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jane Street (November 14)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This isn't adequate sourcing to establish the notability of a city street. Nine of the thirteen footnotes are content self-published by the city (photos, TTC maps, etc.), another is somebody's personal blog, and another is a community real estate directory, which means that 11 of the 13 footnotes here are not notability-assisting sources at all. And of the just two footnotes that come from real GNG-worthy media, one is about a neighbourhood that the street happens to run through and the other is about a transit line that was proposed to run on the street -- which means that while they both verify that the street exists, neither of them are about the street in any non-trivial sense, which means they don't represent enough media coverage to secure the notability of an article all by themselves if none of the rest of the sourcing is any good.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jane Street and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Humulator! Having an article draft 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! Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jane Street

Hello, Humulator. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jane Street, 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) 03:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jane Street

Hello, Humulator. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jane Street".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]