[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 65Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 75

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary page deletion and redirect by reviewer -- no opportunity for discussion

Hi Mike! Festive greetings to you from a very cold Illinois and warm wishes for a wonderful 2022. :)

I'm writing to you today with concerns about a page I created in August 2021 that was suddenly removed today by a reviewer, with no warning and no opportunity for discussion either on my Talk page or the article's talk page. The page in question is Muh Dikhai, a 2015 studio album by noted vocalist Shafqat Amanat Ali. Link to the page's last version, prior to deletion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muh_Dikhai&oldid=1061660760

The editor in question cited lack of notability for the album as reason for deletion and redirected the page to the artiste's Wikipedia page. There are hundreds of stub pages on music albums on Wikipedia that are 1,000 bytes in size, have little more than a track listing, and have 2-3 poor quality references. These articles have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia. For example: Jal Pari (album), Doorie, Meri Kahani, Koi Aanay Wala Hai, Dhaani. In comparison, the page this reviewer deleted was 7,000+ bytes in size and cited a dozen or more high-quality references including extensive media coverage in India and Pakistan, AND artist interviews with reputable national and international media outlets. The album itself is noteworthy (not because it's by a prominent artiste) but for its standalone contributions to Sufi music and Sufi poetry in the South Asian region. The Muh Dikhai article was much more than just the track listing for the album, and (in my opinion) it met general notability guidelines. So I thought it merited its own page -- it was also recently connected to a Wikidata item. A lot of effort went into writing the page, and I'd argue that the article and references demonstrate "significant coverage," "reliable sources," "objective references," and that it is "independent of the subject."

I've noticed this editor may have a history of outright deleting pages he does not like. I left messages on his Talk page and am waiting for him to respond, but in the past, he has responded with "GO AWAY" (!!!) to other editors, so I'm not sure how helpful or respectful communicating with him is going to be. So I'm reaching out to you directly to request your own review of the page Muh Dikhai to either restore the page as it was, or providing an opportunity for further discussion about keeping/deleting/merging the page. Thank you for reading this very long post and for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Sincerely, Priyanka2330 (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Priyanka2330: This isn't the kind of thing I can help with, sorry. I suggest raising this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, where you'll find editors that specialise in album articles who can help better than me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Thanks so much, Mike. I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. Happy new year in advance! :) Priyanka2330 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Photo for Maroparque

Hi there. I took the photo you included at Template:Did you know nominations/Maroparque and cropped it. The new file is at commons:File:At La Palma 2021 1990 (cropped).jpg - I think this new version is a little more visually appealing than the original. Mindmatrix 21:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Thanks! But there's a higher resolution photo at File:At La Palma 2021 1673.jpg that is quite similar to that crop, although perhaps it needs brightening a bit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: I brightened the higher res photo, and swapped them over in the article, thanks for the comment! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #500

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks

Hi Mike Peel! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kosmos 1408

The article Kosmos 1408 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kosmos 1408 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 40-foot radio telescope

On 3 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 40-foot radio telescope, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 40-foot radio telescope (pictured) at Green Bank Observatory was the first automated telescope? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/40 Foot Telescope. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 40-foot radio telescope), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Wikidata weekly summary #501

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #502

Your GA nomination of 40-foot radio telescope

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 40-foot radio telescope you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2021





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: December 2021





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

DYK for Maroparque

On 13 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maroparque, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maroparque received more than 250 exotic animals that were evacuated due to the 2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maroparque. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Maroparque), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #503

Your GA nomination of 40-foot radio telescope

The article 40-foot radio telescope you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:40-foot radio telescope for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 40-foot radio telescope

The article 40-foot radio telescope you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:40-foot radio telescope for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Meat Loaf

The source you cited (Evening Standard) obtained it's information from TMZ. Please look at my hidden comment about TMZ in the article and on the talk page. Please revert your edit until a better source (that doesn't rely on TMZ) can be found. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Hmm, I missed the TMZ mention below the image. I suggest describing the TMZ report and the issues around it within the article, rather than by adding comments, as this is just going to be repeated until there's more information available here. My main concern was that COVID wasn't even being mentioned, even if that was only a possible cause of death. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but I won't describe anything related to TMZ. If it continues to happen without a better source, I'll ask for page protections. Best! Sundayclose (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Head, sand. :-( Page protections won't help, this a case of describing what has been reported regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. If poorly sourced information is added repeatedly, page protection could help, although that's not guaranteed. I've seen it happen in other articles. Hopefully a better source will be found and this will be a moot point. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Better references is always a good solution - but if information is being added repeatedly, then it's better to explain why that's happening and the issues with it rather than to deny it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'll have to ask you not to edit war. You've been around a while, so you know the rules. I don't want to get into a big argument here, so I'm leaving the article alone for now and I won't bother you again unless you revert further. Thanks.Sundayclose (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Sure, let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)