User talk:Zeibgeist
|
|||
Hey just wanting to specify the conflict of interest statement which resulted in the removal of the page. The text that I was inserting was written by Heather Freeman from Freeman Promotions. I hadn't added citations to her work yet as I am still new to the rules around Wikipedia. I have also added an article from Metal Injection which is one of the largest news outlets in the space which involved the bands most recent release. Thank you. Lavictoirec (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Lavictoirec, thank you for the message. All material on Wikipedia needs to be freely licensed – that means it needs to either be your own words, or material published under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. See WP:COPYVIO for a full explanation. The text you added was removed because a) it is a copyright violation and b) it violates Wikipedia's policy against promotional content. All content on Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources, and it's generally discouraged to contribute to topics where you have a conflict of interest. I see that there is a draft for the band at Draft:027; I recommend that you work on that draft so that a reviwer can take a look at it before it's moved to article space. I know this is a lot of info to take in, so let me know if you have any questions. Zeibgeist (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Quarry
[edit]Hi. These are the results of the quarry results of the quarry. I have not had time to analyse them fully yet as they do not appear to align with my original request. Please do not share them further for the moment. They were not obtained for the the purpose of an eventual project to tighten the qualifications for creating new articles in mainspace and cannot be used for that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'll give it a perusal, thanks for the reply. Zeibgeist (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Zeibgeist The main purpose was to establish 1) the number of new pages created by Autoconfirmed users, 2) the number of new pages created by EC users. The sample period under investigation was the duration of the last backlog drive. It's a purely academic exercise because further tightening of the ability of new users to create articles directly in mainspace will violate this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Thank you for the link. It looks like the specific wording on that page is that limiting article creation beyond autoconfrmed users "[is] not strictly prohibited, but ... likely to be declined unless special evidence can be presented to convince system administrators that the changes are necessary." If very strong consensus for restricting article creation to extended confirmed users was established through an RfC, it looks like the Foundation might be willing to accept it, but I think it's unlikely that broad consensus for this change would be established on enwiki (at least right now, although it might not hurt to start a discussion to test the waters). Zeibgeist (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
...special evidence...
. I do not think the time is right for even a discussion. Even if the community came out in favour it would create more heat than light. The thread at WT:NPR has produced the information that is required for another project to reduce the flow of low quality and inappropriate new pages but while it's not directly concerned with NPP itself, it will make the lives of the NPPers a lot easier. WP:ACTRIAL and it's conclusion at WP:ACPERM - you don't get stronger community consensus on Wikipedia for any projects (do read them). They were proof of the WMF's 7-year stonewalling. To restrict to EC is a big ask, for one thing, the number of daily new pages is now only half what it was then and growth is still in decline. Such a request today will almost certainly be coldly refused by the Foundation. The only way it was brought off last time was due to the social capital of the project leaders and their threat to do it locally anyway through an edit filter. WP:KNPP was what broke the impasse. Since 2022 there has been a 100% turnover in senior WMF staff and relations with them are now probably the best since we got over 100 bugs and new features fixed by them for Curation in 2023. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Thank you for the link. It looks like the specific wording on that page is that limiting article creation beyond autoconfrmed users "[is] not strictly prohibited, but ... likely to be declined unless special evidence can be presented to convince system administrators that the changes are necessary." If very strong consensus for restricting article creation to extended confirmed users was established through an RfC, it looks like the Foundation might be willing to accept it, but I think it's unlikely that broad consensus for this change would be established on enwiki (at least right now, although it might not hurt to start a discussion to test the waters). Zeibgeist (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Zeibgeist The main purpose was to establish 1) the number of new pages created by Autoconfirmed users, 2) the number of new pages created by EC users. The sample period under investigation was the duration of the last backlog drive. It's a purely academic exercise because further tightening of the ability of new users to create articles directly in mainspace will violate this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
DYK for Donald Pearlman
[edit]
On 18 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald Pearlman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the efforts of oil industry lobbyist Donald Pearlman to prevent the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol were dramatized in the 2024 play Kyoto? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald Pearlman. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Donald Pearlman), 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.
1=Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Preterintention
[edit]Hi, Zeibgeist. Once upon a time, you draftified Preterintention, for very good reason, and dropped this message at the author's UTP. Now, it's back in main space, longer, and with all the same problems it had before, except way more of them. (I also dropped a message at WT:WikiProject Law about this.) Any idea of what can be done about the situation? Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Thank you for your message. While the article has many sources, I'm concerned that much of the content is original research – many of the sources appear to not even use the term preterintention. While it does appear to be a notable legal concept, the article is such a mess of incomprehensible prose and original research that my inclination is to trim to a stub. The writing is so bad that it would be easier to rebuild the article from the ground up than try to rework anything. To be honest, I'm not completely opposed to taking the article to AfD to get more opinions on the sourcing; I really struggled to find English-language sources when I initially looked, but there are likely non-English sources that establish notability. Zeibgeist (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, although I have not gone into the sources in depth yet. I did not want to bias your response by saying in advance, but what I had in mind was WP:TNT, so we are on the same wavelength. My first priority is to the encyclopedia, but given that this editor has made > 400 edits to the article (and continues to do so today), I would like to let him down as gently as possible.
- That said, on the one hand, he is indeffed at it-wiki for sock evasion; and on the other, he is very responsive to criticism: I warned him for lack of edit summaries yesterday, probably because his English is poor and it is a great effort for him, and he immediately started using them. In my other post, I mostly complained about the lead sentence (here; yesterday @ 07:32) and since my post, he has 38 revisions at the article, and one of them greatly improved the lead sentence.
- I had also wondered if Afd was even an option, as notability is obvious, but maybe as a venue to gather other opinions about TNT. Or raise a discussion at WP:WikiProject Law? I think it's fair to start with his talk page first, which is what I did with the "Problematic" post, but I am totally at a loss what to suggest to him as far as fixing the endemic problems at the article, as I can't very well expect him to greet TNT with a smile. Plus, with him being so responsive, it seems it is worth at least trying to get him to fix it, if it is within his capacity. An odd mix of CIR problems, and eager involvement, at least with his heart in the right place even if the results are sketchy. So, where to from here? I appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this, as I really don't know what to do, but things simply cannot go on like this. (Another time, I'll tell you about the French editor garbling an art history article here at en-wiki, and then standing by almost apologetically, while I got consensus at the Talk page to roll back 800 of his edits there. To say I was surprised, is an understatement.) Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Your commitment to engaging with the article creator is admirable, but I have to admit that I'm not particularly optimistic they will be able to clean up the article in a satisfactory way. I'm not sure if you've seen the response to your message at WT:LAW, but there have been several other posts about the article: I created a thread in July last year, and asilvering created a thread several months later. If you look at the article talk page, there are even more editors who have pointed out the issues with the article. I'm confident that if we were to create a thread at the article talk page and ping the editors who have engaged with the article in the past, we would get consensus to stubify the article to something that is more neutral. This would definitely be harsh for the article creator; however, competence is required for editing Wikipedia, and I've seen enough to be convinced that the article creator doesn't have the English-language competence to be able to write good encyclopedic prose. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I forgot to subscribe to the LAW post, so hadn't seen the response with the links, yet. I am sadly starting to come around that stubification may be inevitable. I think we owe it to him to give him a week or two, but that will probably fall out automatically by the amount of time to gain consensus at the article Talk, followed by Afd which I believe runs a week minimum, so there's two weeks probably. I don't have high hopes he will pull out a miracle, but at least that gives him a decent interval to try to improve it. But I think we both know where it will end up. Sigh. Btw, I am subscribed here, so ping not required. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I commend your willingness to engage with this editor. I lost my patience when I was originally dealing with the article since the creator seemed to feel an ownership that made it difficult to engage collaboratively. I'm in no particular rush, but if there aren't some significant improvements in the next few days I'm inclined to ping the editors who've previously expressed concerns about the article to get consensus to trim it down. Realistically, I don't see any other way to address the OR conerns and borderline incomprehensible prose. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- We could trim it, but we could also TNT it at AfD. I think that would be the better option, honestly. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- TNT was, and remains, my preferred route but I am on board with any of these options. I really tried to get him to budge (see this discussion on his UTP), but although he responds, it is very much IDHT, and he was non-responsive to my mentorship proposal @21:55. I think the end game is clear now, sadly.
- One adjustment to my previous comment @01:57 regarding notability: I no longer think notability is "obvious". It may be notable, but likely does not qualify for stand-alone article, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. See Talk:Preterintention#Notability. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think it could plausibly be its own encyclopedia article (hence my AfC acceptance), but given that we only really have one contributor interested in working on it, and that contributor has an impossible case of IDHT... -- asilvering (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- We could trim it, but we could also TNT it at AfD. I think that would be the better option, honestly. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, I commend your willingness to engage with this editor. I lost my patience when I was originally dealing with the article since the creator seemed to feel an ownership that made it difficult to engage collaboratively. I'm in no particular rush, but if there aren't some significant improvements in the next few days I'm inclined to ping the editors who've previously expressed concerns about the article to get consensus to trim it down. Realistically, I don't see any other way to address the OR conerns and borderline incomprehensible prose. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- You're right, I forgot to subscribe to the LAW post, so hadn't seen the response with the links, yet. I am sadly starting to come around that stubification may be inevitable. I think we owe it to him to give him a week or two, but that will probably fall out automatically by the amount of time to gain consensus at the article Talk, followed by Afd which I believe runs a week minimum, so there's two weeks probably. I don't have high hopes he will pull out a miracle, but at least that gives him a decent interval to try to improve it. But I think we both know where it will end up. Sigh. Btw, I am subscribed here, so ping not required. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Your commitment to engaging with the article creator is admirable, but I have to admit that I'm not particularly optimistic they will be able to clean up the article in a satisfactory way. I'm not sure if you've seen the response to your message at WT:LAW, but there have been several other posts about the article: I created a thread in July last year, and asilvering created a thread several months later. If you look at the article talk page, there are even more editors who have pointed out the issues with the article. I'm confident that if we were to create a thread at the article talk page and ping the editors who have engaged with the article in the past, we would get consensus to stubify the article to something that is more neutral. This would definitely be harsh for the article creator; however, competence is required for editing Wikipedia, and I've seen enough to be convinced that the article creator doesn't have the English-language competence to be able to write good encyclopedic prose. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Ygm
[edit]
Message added Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Panimur
[edit]I removed the source because the source is giving wrong information. The sources are non native and pls don't change it. This is from my place and the information given from the sources are wrong 2409:408A:8C9F:867:7224:7A0D:E973:F864 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Mishimao, please make sure you are logged into your account. All content on Wikipedia needs to be verified by reliable sources, not based on the personal opinions of editors; whether or not you are a native of that particular region is irrelevant. If you think the source is incorrect, please provide a different source that verifies your changes or remove the incorrect info entirely. Removing a source and then changing the content based on your anecdotal experiences is not acceptable. Zeibgeist (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Then we shall remove the entire thing, why allow misinformation from Assamese news outlets to be circulating here? Mishimao (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Articles for Creation backlog drive
[edit]
Hello Zeibgeist:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Susan Kare
[edit]Hello Zeibgeist, you may have seen that I reinstated the {{Improve images}} template on the Susan Kare article. I've tried to make it clear what I'm up to on the article's Talk page, though I thought it might be useful to also add some curtesy links (here, here, and here), if you're interested. The main idea is to try to encourage folks to help us improve the photos on BLPs (via WP:PICYOU). I'm also particularly interested in design and visual arts related subjects (where it can add meaningful context to show good examples of their work). Any help or advice welcome! Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cl3phact0, thank you for the explanation and the links to those discussions. I like the idea of asking article subjects to provide pictures of themselves, but I'd be curious to how often that actually happens as a result of the template being added. I could easily see this template languishing indefinitely on articles that already have adequate images. Zeibgeist (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm certainly aware of the possibility that this effort amounts to nothing. There are a few others who are also pitching in with tweaks to the template and other subtle improvements here and there too. Let's give it a bit of time an see if there are tangible results. It costs nothing and may get something. I'm also closely monitoring the outcome, so if the conclusion is that this doesn't work, then by all means, let's not just let the template languish in abject inutility ad infinitum. Also, another related project which overlaps (to some degree) is WP:UBI, where the "Improve images" template has found its way onto a number of the examples shown (and I believe may have even resulted in at least a few successful "upgrades"). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely worth a trial run to see what the results are. Thanks again for the communication! Zeibgeist (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm certainly aware of the possibility that this effort amounts to nothing. There are a few others who are also pitching in with tweaks to the template and other subtle improvements here and there too. Let's give it a bit of time an see if there are tangible results. It costs nothing and may get something. I'm also closely monitoring the outcome, so if the conclusion is that this doesn't work, then by all means, let's not just let the template languish in abject inutility ad infinitum. Also, another related project which overlaps (to some degree) is WP:UBI, where the "Improve images" template has found its way onto a number of the examples shown (and I believe may have even resulted in at least a few successful "upgrades"). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello Zeibgeist,
I would like to contribute an additional argument in favor of restoring the article on RE/Flex. RE/Flex is currently the only actively maintained and fully-featured alternative to Flex, the well-known lexical analyzer generator. It is explicitly mentioned on the Flex Wikipedia page as a modern substitute that supports Unicode, which Flex does not.
Furthermore, while Flex can generate C++ code through flex++, its support is only partial—for instance, input buffer switching with C++ iostreams is not fully implemented. In contrast, RE/Flex offers complete and robust C++ support.
In this sense, RE/Flex can be seen as the modern successor to Flex, just as Flex once was to Lex. Given the foundational role that lexical analyzers like Lex and Flex have played in the history of computer programming, RE/Flex is of clear encyclopedic relevance.
Its growing user base, active maintenance, and significantly better performance benchmarks compared to Flex (in terms of both speed and Unicode support) further justify its relevance and notability. I believe these factors justify a dedicated Wikipedia article.
Best regards
Jihelgé1 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
PS: I am a French computer scientist at CNRS, Sorbonne University and IRCAM, in real-time dedicated programming language, and I use RE/Flex in the implementation of my research projects (e.g. Antescofo). Jihelgé1 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Jihelgé1, I notice that this message is your first edit to Wikipedia. I'm curious how you became aware of the article's deletion? As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RE/flex, you are welcome to request that the article be restored since the discussion was closed as a "soft delete". See the directions at WP:Requests for undeletion for more details. Zeibgeist (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I learned about the page deletion in the notes of one of the latest RE/Flex releases. This isn't my first interaction with Wikimedia, but this time I opted for a non-anonymous login, but I'm still a “newbye”. Thanks for pointing me to WP:Requests for undeletion. Jihelgé1 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)