This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zeibgeist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On 31 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zig Jackson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Zig Jackson is the first contemporary Native American photographer to be represented in the collections of the Library of Congress? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zig Jackson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zig Jackson), 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.
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
A review from Hardcore Gaming 101, maybe the most respected English-language retro gaming site
A review of the compilation by Nintendo Life, a current major gaming site
And since it's in a new compilation, any sensible human being is able to tell right away if they just Google its name, they are gonna find even more mentions of it in recent news articles and reviews.
Still, someone who's on Wikipedia just to destroy our hard work added a deletion template to it anyway.
Please watch this article and make sure they won't delete it. I won't waste my time creating any other articles due to these editors. I suspect they don't even click on the references I spent days searching for on Archive.org and other sites.
Hi Beqwk, it appears Guardian Force (video game) was never nominated for deletion; an editor just added a {{notability}} template to the article (which was subsequently removed). That template will not cause an article to be deleted—for a description of how that can happen see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. New page reviewers have a massive backlog of articles to work through, and they may not always search for sources as thoroughly as they should. It's never a bad idea to add extra sources to more clearly establish notability, and fleshing out the article with additional details rather than just leaving it as a three-sentence stub would help as well. I'm not going to watchlist every one of your video game stubs, but feel free to drop me a message if any of them do get nominated for deletion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Good morning. I have made the changes requested by various administrators. Is the form so simplified, enriched with clarifying examples, and shortened from the references to all the countries of the world, okay like this? On the content, however, there are no doubts: everything is 100% correct, I know the praeterintention very well (having done a university doctorate on it). Greetings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Praeterintention. Joseph77237 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Joseph77237. While the draft has definitely seen some improvement, there are still some major issues that need to be addressed. First, the quality of writing is still poor. It is clearly written by a non-native English speaker, and the style of writing is not encyclopedic. It contains a lot of legal jargon, but the concepts being expressed are unclear to a layman such as myself. Remember that this is an encyclopedia for a general audience and not a legal textbook or academic article. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I am concerned that the draft contains original research, specifically synthesis of different published sources. Many of the sources in the draft are about a specific country or legal system, but the draft makes many generalized claims about the concept of preterintention that aren't specific to a particular country. Ideally, I would like to see sources that compare the concept in different countries in order to create a good encyclopedic overview; otherwise, the draft may need to be heavily revised in order to avoid original research. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
if the content is judged to be original research, then I give up: there is nothing original: the sources are indicated in the note; his fellow administrators ordered to delete all references to other countries and so I did...so I worked on it for days and they made me delete it and certainly I will not abstain from time to redo the research: I am not schizophrenic yet. as for the language: I have given examples in brackets that anyone can digest... therefore I abandon the entry: administrator B) orders to delete references to all countries in the world; administrator A) orders that comparative reference be made to all countries in the world; administrator C) judges the entry to be the result of original research ignoring the sources indicated in the note;... evidently those who ignore that a stone is a diamond will always judge it to be a rock. I abandon my entry and my contribution to Wikipedia: there are no clear rules and there is no universal principle of trust: if I work to satisfy the parameters dictated by administrator B), then administrator A) cannot come and tell me to undo my work because it is all wrong; the law is a serious thing: the user must be provided with exact information, not nonsense.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDM Institute for Management Development until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
good to connect with you. I hope to learn lots from you.
Can I ask what's your strategy for pulling all the categories under Huanyu Entertainment category as I see the Chinese page has all the separate categories at the bottom of the page.
Hello Heureuxl, thanks for reaching out. The reason for this is that all of those broader categories are already present in Category:Huanyu Entertainment. If you have an eponymous category like this (i.e., a category that covers the exact same topic as an article), it is optional to include those broader categories. This is described at WP:CATMAIN if you'd like more info. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, I would like to ask you if Yang Le (businesswoman) page can be changed back to producer. She is a producer and still actively produces Chinese tv series. Like Yu Zheng, her company's co-founder, who is notably known for being a screenwriter but also the co-founder of Huanyu entertainment.
I am not connected to them. Some of the news I use to update articles, I paraphrased after searching online. I thought they are facts since I got them from secondary sources?
Thanks for confirming Heureuxl. To respond to your initial question, the sources that I've seen (at least from what I can tell through Google translate) seem to discuss Yang Le more in her capacity as CEO of Huanyu Entertainment rather than as a producer, so I'm inclined to leave the title as is. If you feel strongly, however, you can move the page back to Yang Le (producer). Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Lord Bolingbroke !
I just thought that as she was still doing a lot of producing, she should be credited as a producer instead of a businesswoman... but thanks for letting me know and thanks for being understanding. It's so good to hear all your explanations, helps me be a better contributor!! :)
In regards to some of your edits having a promotional tone, consider this text you've added at Yang Le (businesswoman): [Yang Le] was recognized for her initiative, which focuses on nurturing young talent in the entertainment industry via Huanyu Entertainment strategic resources. This initiative has produced some of the most prominent figures in Chinese entertainment, including Bai Lu and Wu Jinyan, and is considered a major contribution to the sustainable development of the industry. This is not a neutral description of the award she received – it is unencyclopedic puffery that seems intended to promote her achievements rather than provide an unbiased description. Be careful about paraphrasing Chinese sources too closely, as many of them are not neutral due to ties to the CCP. The source you added for the sentence above, for example, is the state-run China News Service. Be extremely cautious about using these sources except for unambiguous staements of fact. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see where you are coming from now, Lord Bolingbroke. I will be more cautious in my language. It's just that I tried to use similar words that the article was reporting (and I translated it using Google English)... But thank you for the tips, really appreciate it! Heureuxl10:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Springer54, I've done a bit of cleanup on the page. I think notability is borderline, so I will leave it in the queue for another reviewer to take a look. Let me know if you have any questions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help @Lord Bolingbroke Do you can recommend another reviewer do me? Should I reduce more references? What do you think?
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey I noticed a recent edit where you changed "ISFO may stand for:" -> "ISFO may refer to:", citing MOS:DAB. However, MOS:DAB (specifically MOS:DABINTRO) appears to support either variant, giving as an example "ABC may refer to:" or "ABC may stand for:". I actually think "refer to" sounds better, so I don't mind the change, but I thought I would share that the guideline you cited doesn't appear to prefer either usage. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Photos of Japan, thanks for the note. I missed the part of the guideline that also uses "may stand for" for acronyms. Either variant works just fine, "may refer to" is just what I was used to seeing on dab pages. No preference either way. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey, this is swimminginbluewater. I created a new account called swimminginbluewaters because I forgot my password. It's hard to remember passwords at this point in time because so many other websites and social media keep history of every password I've used within the past 15 years or so and they won't let me use a password that I used 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 5 years ago, ect. I can't learn new ones all the time so I end up having to create new accounts on all sites and its a pain!
But anyway, the edits that I have made on some of the pages were mainly adding what day those centuries and years begin, such as 9600 for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9600&oldid=1273852003 was the change that I made and it lets people know the its gonna be a year that will start on a Saturday and that its gonna also be a century leap year as well.
I basically had originally added that to the other information about the number 9600 may refer to: I added a "(see below)" so that the article/information about that year would be seen at the bottom of the number article.
The year 9600, in the 10th millennium. (see below)
ATI Radeon 9600, a computer graphics card series
The 9600 port
NVIDIA GeForce 9600, a computer graphics card series
Windows 8.1 build 9600, an operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimminginbluewaters (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Pages like 9600 are disambiguation pages – they're not articles, but rather serve as guides to different topics that could be referred to by the same search term. Your edit got reverted (for good reason) because you tried to convert the disambiguation page into an article without getting consensus for that change. 9600 is so far in the future that it really doesn't make sense to have an article about it. Do you really think it would be reasonable to have articles for random years thousands of years in the future just to tell readers what day they begin on? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
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
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)
@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)
DYK for Donald Pearlman
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.
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)
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.
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)
Ygm
Hello, Zeibgeist. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Panimur
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
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.
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)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zeibgeist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Resolved
