User talk:Squeeps10/Archive 2

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfA counter

I saw this fix - just wanted to note that the official counter is broken at the moment due to a Cyberbot I outage, but your vote will definitely be counted regardless of what the bot says. Thanks for commenting! Enterprisey (talk!) 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: Ah, thanks! Wizard King 03:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:MoYu

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

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. CptViraj (Talk) 04:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not News

Hey, I'm not sure if you're aware - but Wikipedia is not a news site. There is no rush, nor a deadline to "report" on recent events, such as suspected deaths. Per our policies on biographies of living people, we must be extremely careful to use only high-quality sources when adding contentious material about an article's subject. If you refer to a source as 'semi-reliable', it's probably best to either find, or wait for a better source. These sort of 'rumored' reports can do real-life damage to article subjects, which we should avoid. I'm not going to revert you again, nor issue a block, but I would like you to take a look at some of the pages I have linked here if you have time. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Thompson's brother has confirmed his death on Facebook, would you consider this good enough? Wizard King 23:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's now also been confirmed by the team's social media representative on Discord. Wizard King 23:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WizardKing, What's the rush to "report" on this? The guidelines for using facebook as a primary source can be found at Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_MySpace. I'm not sure Discord can be used as a reliable source, can you link to the statement made there? SQL ^{Query me!} 00:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot link to the Discord because you need an invite link to see it (which I have long ago lost). I can, however, provide a link to a screenshot on Reddit. And Variety has now also reported on it. The Facebook post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheKingofRandom/comments/cjzwsj/its_confirmed_folks_he_really_is_gone/ and the Reddit post is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheKingofRandom/comments/ck07sd/coming_directly_from_an_admin_such_a_sad_thing_to/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardKing (talk • contribs)

Links to screenshots on reddit, unfortunately will unlikely be usable (Please, read our policy on verifiability). Look, I'm not arguing that he may have recently passed. I'm arguing that first and foremost, we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, or a tabloid, and we have policies regarding biographies that are intended to not cause harm to the subjects or families of the subjects of our articles. There is no rush to publish news if only poor-quality sources, unverifiable sources, and sources from tabloids can be found. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. Variety has now reported on his death, so the point is moot now. There's an RS now. Wizard King 00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited How Ridiculous, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dart and 44 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi. If you are going to take an active interest in how our admins are elected, you will certainly be interested in reading:

WP:RFAV
WP:RFAADVICE
RfA criteria.
And equally important, do follow WT:RfA

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

If someone tells me to stay off their talk page, I do that. - My view: GJP made a comment, and nobody had to question that, and all would have been fine, no? When someone has defined RfA criteria, it doesn't matter if these are also Your criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's perfectly reasonable to question a !vote on RFA, oppose or support, especially if "doesn't meet my criteria" is the only explanation. Which criteria? How can the user meet these criteria? An explanation would be very handy to the closing crat. Especially if the RFA winds up in the discretionary area, although it doesn't look like this is headed that way. And you're right, they don't have to be my criteria. I think GJP's criteria are far too restrictive, but they're his, so it's not my problem. I don't have a problem with his oppose vote. My problem is with him refusing to expand upon his concerns when asked, and then proceeding to be uncivil. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. Squeeps 10 15:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeps10, when a user has requested that you stay off their Talk page, you're expected to respect that (except for mandatory notice requirements). You can learn more at WP:User talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You are entitled to your view, but a User talk page is a place where a user can redact everything but official notices. Did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do now. Squeeps 10 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can also come to an agreement about just letting someone's support or oppose stand as it is, unless there's some factual error on which it's based? We recently had a RfA with 300+ supports. Imagine everyone curious would have demanded explanations. RfA is bad enough as it is, let's not make it more complicated. If criteria were uniformly the same, we could let a bot determine if a candidate fits. I feel that it depends a lot on what type of mopping someone wants to do, so have no fixed criteria. I look from cased to case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who asked the question. Kusma did. All I did was state on GJP's talk page that I was of a mind with Kudpung, and that I believe GJP is being uncivil. Squeeps 10 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I restrict myself voluntarily to two comments per thread ;) - I take that we may even agree on not questioning solid comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I certainly agree with you, I'm just saying that I'm not the one who questioned it in the first place. Squeeps 10 16:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why and what does it matter what their criteria are? Are they not entitled to state their opinion? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what they are. They are allowed to state their opinion. Squeeps 10 22:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Discord invite

Hey Squeeps!

Did you know we have an active discord server? We chat all about Wikipedia stuff, and it's a pretty chill place to ask questions and such.

Oshawott 12 mentioned you on there about some concerns he had with The King of Random. He asked me how he should respond to you, but I saw that you have a discord account and figured it'd better to just invite you to discuss there instead. Also, we love getting more people! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Joining now. Squeeps 10 16:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Squeeps10! You created a thread called How do I access my AFD stats? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]