|
|||
On 4 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al Sweet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that cornetist Al Sweet dressed his band, the White Hussars, in flashy white-and-gold military uniforms based on hussars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al Sweet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Al Sweet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
A bit rich for anonymous IP address to talk about "the credibility of our project" nevertheless I suggest we apply to get the article semi-protected, which shields it from anonymous accounts. — Jon ( talk) 01:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the revert, @
Jon! I was honestly just now debating going to the noticeboard (especially after comments like this:
Special:Diff/1210267647 and
Special:Diff/1210267941). You are now the third user to have merged the pages, so if it happens again, I'll either go to the noticeboard or apply for protection. Thanks again!
Why? I Ask (
talk) 01:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I went ahead and got it protected for now anyway (thanks to User:Schwede66) — Jon ( talk) 03:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Why? I Ask May i ask on what basis and criteria you declined the submission. I don't see the reason as there are sources which is supporting the sentence. Can you please provide a detailed reason as in what improvements needs to be in that page rather than declining it. Thank You! Ashvik08122023 ( talk) 19:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Ashvik08122023: For WP:BLPs especially, there needs to be a high-level of sourcing that both shows the person is notable and supports the written material. Unfortunately, this does not include WP:self-published sources (Nandakumar's books), questionable publications (The Indian Panorama and The Times of India), and profiles on blogs (the World Music Central website). Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh God... all of those DCA corps that are now part of DCI will have to have their tables formatted. 😳 Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Bgsu98: I was literally just about to message you. I was going to ask, firstly, if you'd be willing to do it (I have tried for Govenaires, and I keep messing it up), and secondly, what the colors should be to maintain the DCA positions with the new DCI positions.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 01:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide the appropriate date ranges for when DCA used what terminology (ie. Open Class, World Class, etc.) and what their closest equivalents would be to DCI. Then I'll add the key like what we use on the DCI corps and begin transitioning the tables over.
Bgsu98
(Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It should be:
- Can you provide the appropriate date ranges for when DCA used what terminology (ie. Open Class, World Class, etc.) and what their closest equivalents would be to DCI. Then I'll add the key like what we use on the DCI corps and begin transitioning the tables over.
Bgsu98
(Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
| 1965–1997 | 1997–2001 | 2001–2021 | 2022–2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Class | Open Class | World Class | |
| Open Class | |||
| A Class | |||
- Per the Vickers encyclopedia and the Wikipedia page. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello
mate, I have seen your name multiple times at
WP:TfD so I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask for help regarding templates. I have created {{
Yanga Chief}} and {{
Anatii}} and it was easy since they have notable songs, written songs, produced songs, and released album(s) as well, so I was wondering if it would be possible to create one for
Tyla (linked category to show her works + tour) or is it too early? I'm asking 'cause I came across this template {{
Kabza de Small}} which does not contain too many articles 
Thank you in advance, I'll be on the lookout for your response. dxneo (
talk) 07:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Dxneo: I love templates; the more that help with navigation, the better! Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Why? I Ask,
I just want to let you know where I'm coming from. Years ago, before you registered this account, we had administrators who were a little deletion-crazy. They would delete any page that had a CSD tag on it and never examine it themselves to see if the tag was valid and the criteria appropriate. Delete! Delete! Delete! This went on for years. Because most taggings by editors are fairly accurate, many of these article/page deletions were warranted. But with one admin in particular, their talk page was full of editors upset with page deletions that they thought were invalid. And the complaining editors were brushed off and made to feel bad for even questioning this admin. And because these tagged pages were never properly reviewed, hundreds, maybe thousands, of pages were deleted that probably should not have been speedy deleted. Eventually, it ended up in a big arbitration case and his admin privileges were removed. But before it got to the arbitration phase, this admin was brought to WP:AN multiple times but he was a oldtimer, was very productive (naturally) and he would not change his admin habits to actually assess whether or not a tag and its criteria were warranted despite multiple scoldings. His arbitration case happened during a year that found several admins, all who had each been editing for more than a decade, be de-sysop'd through arbitration cases. We lost some great admins but they were careless with their admin tools or rude to editors asking for help and they are no longer active on the project. So, I think the pedulum has swung over to the "more cautious" side and I see admins taking more care to see that a CSD tag and criteria follows the CSD guidelines and they remove tags when they believe they should. I know that I've received enough complaints in years past about prematurely deleting pages under CSD G5 criteria that I now want the block-evasion to be confirmed by a checkuser or at least in a closed SPI case before I delete an article with this criteria.
From your stance, the socking and CSD tags on this article probably seemed obvious. But no administrator wants to be brought to WP:AN or, even worse, arbitration because they played fast and loose with the deletion guidelines. It's an unpleasant experience. And, from my perspective, the AFD was going to close as delete any way so the speedy deletion wasn't even necessary and that's exactly what happened with this article, the AFD was closed early as Delete. Because you responded to me in the AFD and that is now closed, I just wanted to offer you a reply to put some actions into context. We've had admins who were quick to delete and never asked any questions and it took years and years before their reckless actions were brought to a halt. We still have some admins who are "old-style" but they no longer patrol deletion areas like CSD categories and AFDLand. Things might take a little longer now but I think, in most cases, it's better to follow the process rather than be impatient and find yourself hauled to Deletion review to undergo admin scrutiny. I hope this provides a fuller explanation of the sequence of events in regard to the deletion of this article and offers you a perspective from the admin side. Thanks for all of your contributions to the project which I know are made in good faith and are well-intentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Liz, thank you for taking the time to explain the background behind your stance. I suppose, from someone that knows the background and older side of Wikipedia better than I do, it is probably not worth the risk. Why? I Ask ( talk) 06:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)