User talk:ArcAngel: Difference between revisions

---

My status can be one of the following: Online Busy Around Offline Sleeping Unknown

---

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kahootz Toys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toy of the Year. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WWE discography

No worries. Happens a lot, actually — usually about 25% of the articles that I encounter when I'm dealing with the uncategorized articles queue turn out to be ones where the categories are already there but have been "hidden" or "commented". So you're not the first person to forget about that, and you won't be the last :-) Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User Seamumbai

Your note at Usernames for administrator attention stated to wait until the user edited. The article this user created about his school in Mumbai was called School of environment and Architecture (or SEA) - it was deleted under G12 as a copyright infringement. Thought you should know. Regards, --Manway 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the time I made the note, his contribs link was still red.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Adobe Illustrator

(poke) Also added to the table on Category:Wikipedians who use Adobe Illustrator, FYI. This one is actually, IMO, the best design of the lot. Revent^talk 03:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I thought it was a better representation also.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to save work

It is only a suggestion, but I've noticed you are migrating a load of old AFC submissions to the Draft: namespace. My suggestion is simply to let them stay where they are on the basis that they do no harm there and will, eventually, self weed from the system. EIther we will accept them or they will wither on the vine and be G13d.

I started out migrating them, too, but found I was likely to make errors that I could not clean up without admin help, and I found it to start to be work for work's sake rather than moving the project forward. You may disagree.

I even used to move them when I reviewed them. No more. Now I accept or decline them where they are. i do move those in user space to Draft: space, but not as a matter of course, just when I happen across them. I am less busy than I was because of this. I think the quality of my reviews has gone up, too. Fiddle Faddle 12:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, but I am one who doesn't mind the work. Besides that, I feel the reason why the draft namespace was created was because article drafts really don't belong in a "talk" space. I don't move drafts that are in userspace though (as per this discussion. I am reviewing some as I go along and accepting or (re)declining them as needed - really just trying to make a small dent in the humongous backlog .   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have qualified my migration of user space ones. I only migrate those that have been submitted. Submission turns them into public property. Enjoy killing off the backlog Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a lot of work ahead of me. .   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

either way is good--the original idea was that they would simply be worked out, but any way of getting them looked at is worthwhile. As for me, I will accept a draft that has not been submitted if I think it good enough. Everything posted here is public property. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I am not really "cherry picking" them, I am just going through the list and moving them to draftspace, and doing a copyvio check as well as a quick check for sources. My plan is to come back at a later time to revisit them and try to get them up to Wikipedia standards. I noticed that on a lot of these the creator has pretty much "disappeared" from editing, so it's up to the existing editors to flesh these drafts out. I also try not to G13 anything that you or Anne have removed as I am sure you have your reasons for doing so.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What you're doing is extremely helpful. (though you will find it very difficult to get back to all of them--I know I have quite a backlog). Remember that the standard is merely a good chance of passing afd & nothing outrageously wrong otherwise--you will find about 1 in 20 declined for trivial reasons that should have been accepted. If you can help with the obvious, then Anne and I can more easily work on the others. I'm very glad to have found someone else joining in on this . DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Very glad to help out, AfC really needs all it can get right now, it seems. I know eventually that all will be at the very least looked at. I too noticed that there is a lot of duplication in drafts in WT:AFC and draftspace, so that is also helping to eliminate those. Perhaps it's a small chunk of the backlog, but my goal is to have it manageable given enough time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish it were true that all will get looked at. The very few of us working to catch them before they get deleted can not keep up in the least. I can easily tell for a hundred 6-month old AFCs a day which 20% of them are certainly hopeless and which 10% are almost certainly acceptable. What I cannot do the same day is take the 70% and improve them to acceptability, or even see if they are likely to become acceptable if rewritten---for the only way to do that right is to try to improve them and see if one succeeds. Even if I did nothing else at WP I could do 10 to a minimal level of stub or start, unless the topics were really formulaic. If I tried to do to it more completely I might perhaps do 2 or 3. But there are many things else to work on, like the probable half million existing promotional articles and the million or so that need to be updated--and all the really interesting problems. And the need to encourage good new contributors , which is the most important thing I can do here.

Your choice to clean up duplicates is particular helpful--these are the sort of things that should have been cleaned up soon after submission, not left to linger. A great many arise because people get discouraged by irrelevant reviews, and try the same thing over -- and often in mainspace. One of the hardest things to do is give effective warning that a topic is not going to work without being insulting. DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fine balance of helping the new editor and trying not to alienate them from contributing, for sure. I'm not one of the best writers around, but I try my best at re-writing things so that at least they will look halfway decent .   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

20:10:21, 8 August 2014 review of submission by Bylt2119

• Bylt2119 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Bylt2119 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear ArcAngel, first of all thank you for taking your time to review two of my recent submissions. From what you have done, I feel that you might be in a hurry and did not really have time to look into both submissions. For the company article, please not just check "news" for notability, not look more closely at those really related to what this company is doing: Scholarly Publication. Given it is publishing four very well recognized journals as it is shown in most recent SCI Journal Citation Report, this company deserves an article. If not, many articles on the similar publishers should be removed from Wikipedia.

Also, part of the reason for me to revise and resubmit this company article was because of DGG's comments that he wrote under the first submission. This comments is now right below your comments. Please go check it again, and may talk to DGG if you think it might be helpful. I'm hoping that you could reconsider your decision on this company article given the fact that it is a very well recognized among the scientific communities although you may not find it in newspapers. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Bylt2119 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Paper bag players

Now that you have found the references you need to indicate more specifically which source supports the various statements in the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, progress will come on that, just will take some time to sort everything out.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the correct process

This is why I nominated Praneet sah for AfD. Is your immediate move back to Draft: the correct process? I'd love to know for sure. Fiddle Faddle 18:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, since the editor who created the page doesn't have enough editing time to be on the AfC team, so therefore they really aren't "authorized" to review, accept, and move drafts to mainspace.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I left a further though or two ion the AfD which requires closure. I suggest you consider a non admin closure of it? Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Before that happens, though, I've made a further comment in the discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Either, neither, or both of us may be correct. I have no idea . I bet someone else does, though. No idea who! Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well be that as it may, pretty sure the AFD can be non-admin closed.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Do that thing! AFter all, you did the action. Fiddle Faddle 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Leishman (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Leishman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

  ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! ArcAngel, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Userbox removal

Hi, I'm looking at this ([1]) edit, and there's a problem. While you are correct that the user in question was not a reviewer, you are not entitled to police other accounts' userboxes. Please be informed that there is no policy supporting your claim that a users choice of userboxes need be accurate. There is, however, policy restricting how you may edit another user's talk page, and removing another user's userboxes may be considered disruption or vandalism. Thanks! betafive 15:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case I applied WP:IAR since the editor was displaying disruptive behavior and was a WP:SOCK account as well so I feel that I acted in the best interests of Wikipedia.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

While I chose a different route and gave the editor with the box a stern warning and request, I understand that rationale and agree that removal of the box was appropriate in these restricted circumstances. The point is moot They are a sock of a banned puppetmaster. Fiddle Faddle 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Paper Bag Players

I see you have found some sources. How do you feel about adding them as references to the article and then reviewing it with a view to acceptance? Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was my plan with this one I just haven't gotten back to it yet.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

COI at AFC causes me immense perplexity

We appear to allow it on the basis that we will beat it out of the draft. We also allow paid editors to use it as a vehicle to get their work into main space. I dislike the different rules for different places. I find it irks me in the same way that football players get articles for a 1 second appearance in a qualifying game, but an academic must jump through 27 assorted hoops to qualify.

So, even though I hate it, I work with it, and try to beat it put of the draft. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, as long as the draft/article is written neutrally. This is the problem with COI - most editors who have it can't do that, and this might be one of those cases. I thought it best to disclose the COI in this draft because it appears that there are issues with trying to get it neutral in tone.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Lodge {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page, filling out the yes parameter and the diff of the statement made by the editor, and make sure, if it is ever accepted, that this goes with it. Some tools fail to migrate the Draft talk: page well. I agree. Almost no-one can handle COI well. Fiddle Faddle 07:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for alerting me to that template, I have made a mental note for future reference. Would also be handy for Evan Blass (below).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tags on Evan Blass

Hi there. I'm the author of the self-submitted Evan Blass page. Just wanted to give you a bit of background info about the submission. While still in my Sandbox, I brought the draft into the Wikipedia-Help IRC room for suggestions. I was very clear that I was the author of the page, and wanted to know if it met notability requirements, and if there were any formatting or citation-based issues that needed addressing (there were). Several admins offered suggestions, and everyone participating in the discussion agreed that the final draft was suitable for article publication. In fact, one admin said that it was most NPOV-adherent article he'd ever seen from a person close to the topic, while another commented that he was going to start using my case as an example when people asked him "how do I get in Wikipedia?"

In short, I took great care to ensure that this article was written in the acceptable style, was formatting-compliant, and went through the proper approval channels before publication. Thanks, EvanBlass (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the article doesn't matter. The tags are accurate, and are added whenever autobiographical articles are created.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do those tags ever get removed? EvanBlass (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

They shouldn't as they are there to let others know about those issues.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ArcAngel, I was PMd on IRC by User:EvanBlass, asking for my opinion on this. The point of the tag is not to shame the contributor, but to ask for other Wikipedians to help clean up the article, because it doesn't meet policies. Can you point out any content on that article that should be changed(that you can't- WP:SOFIXIT) because of NPOV issues? Anything that is bad because it is written by the subject? In my personal opinion, your response was very WP:BITEy to a contributor that has been very polite to you. I've removed the maintenance tags for now, if you reinstate them, would you mind if you send me a talk page message? Thanks. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If my responses seemed bitey, they weren't intended that way. I was simply making an accurate assessment (the way I understood them) on the tags, and I placed them to let others know that the article creator was the subject. Is that not how COI tags work? And as WP:AUTO suggests, writing about oneself is not encouraged. I'll just let this play out without any further intervention.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

COI tags are added so that Wikipedia articles can be identified as needing maintenance or cleanup. Yes, writing about oneself is not encouraged, "unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community", and several users on IRC, including me, believe this is good enough to be on Wikipedia. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that I now have a COI in this matter, because I will be adopting User:EvanBlass, so feel free to give my comments less weight(?), but seek other editors opinions on this if you want to pursue this. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the IRC "approval" have been disclosed and transcluded on the article talk page, then? I think it would have made for a lot more "understanding".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'll do it. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFC/R archives

Hi ArcAngel - thanks for archiving AFC/R requests, but please see User talk:Rcsprinter123/Archives/41#AFCR. Rcsprinter123 is on holiday at the moment, so I'm taking over until he gets back. I archive them at around 5–6am UTC each day. Ollieinc (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)