Jump to content

User talk:Puffin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ajl-quc (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 3 April 2011 (→Edits to Quest University page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Látches, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Talkback

Hello, Puffin. You have new messages at WP:PERM/R.
Message added 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liar

I never removed content, you should know by know and are obviously consciously lying by claiming otherwise. Well, par for the course here on Wikipedia. Have fun! --91.55.62.219 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--Be careful and you'll be fine. :) Remember to keep warning them (you can still use Twinkle for that). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Heard

Heya. I saw you accepted this edit to the above article. When you see content like that (i.e. unsourced) it is worth checking the edit history - or even consider leaving it for someone else to review. The IP has been trying to ewdit junk into that article all afternoon :) No issue - but I thought I would leave a note. Have a great day. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Firstly, I don't remember to have warned an user whose edit you reverted. When did I warn user whose edits you reverted? Link? And secondly, how could I have noticed that you reverted some edit when it looks like I did it, as sometimes, when two users revret at the same time, it may look like that. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The edit you accepted (without a source) is the entire reason this page is under the pending changes trial. See Talk:Nicole Alexander. We are trying to avoid WP:BLP violations. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to check the sources next time. Látches Lets talk! 09:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Puffin. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
Message added 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tastes good!

Mr.Kennedy1 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Mr.Kennedy1 talk 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFun Police

Hi! I just wanted to welcome you to the WikiFun Police and encourage you to ask any questions you have about it at either my talk page or the project talk page. Also, you should add your name to the member's list so everyone who visits that page knows your in it (unless, of course, you want to be a secret member, as the asparagus box implies...) Have fun! EWikistTalk 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add my name please Látches Lets talk! 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Your participation is appreciated! On an unrelated note (sorry), you're not supposed to have images in your signatures per WP:SIGN. Just thought I'd point that out (an admin will probably do so at some point). EWikistTalk 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed! Látches Lets talk! 20:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corsican constitution

Hi, my previous edit to the History of Corsica page was to resolve two contradictory statements. I did provide an edit summary. I have now reverted your change. Thanks.--80.42.232.134 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi Látches, thanks for the offer. I'd like to accept. How do we proceed? I would like to learn through the creation of a page that I hope will be acceptable to the main encyclopedia. I have started work here and have plenty more research to do but I want to make sure I get everything else as strong as possible too. Can you help? Chriscuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You blocked the founder falsely!

I had a weak password, and someone guessed it to take over my account. I think tubgirl ended up for a time on every Wikipedia page. A couple other admin accounts were compromised at the same time - in case you're curious, this episode was covered in the Wikipedia Signpost.--Jiang (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped. Though the Jimbo block wasn't mentioned... –xenotalk 18:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACC request

Hello, we've received a request on the Account Creation tool for an account there in your name. Could you please confirm that this request was made by you? Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the note up top. Never mind! I've approved your access to the tool. Please be sure to review the interface guide before logging in. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Suspension

No, I'm not going to reactivate your account, certainly not so soon. The interface says in several places that if you can see a button or link, you can do whatever that link says. There was absolutely no reason for you to create that account, even if you had accidentally reset it. The best way to proceed would have been to Drop the request, which marks it as declined without sending an email, or asking another ACC member for advice. This stream-of-consciousness request does not convince me that reinstating your account so soon would be a benefit, especially so soon after your suspension. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new users

Hi Puffin. When using semi-automated tools to edit, such as Twinkle. Please make sure you take your time, and check each edit individually and carefully. This is to avoid making errors, such as the one you made here. It's very easy to make errors like this when editing too fast with a script or program, so it is important that you pay extra attention. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, wasn't sure which one to delete. Is there a tool which makes it easier to welcome new users? Puffin Lets talk! 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they're both exactly the same, it wouldn't have made any difference which one you deleted, so just pick one at random. Well Friendly and Twinkle are your best bet, although those are just scripts. I doubt people would be in support of you... firing up AWB for example, and then mass-welcoming new users like that. Because you should be checking their edits etc. first, to avoid leaving an inappropriate message for a vandal. These welcome messages shouldn't be left in a bot-like fashion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition

Intuition should have told you that the article had been vandalised. As for notability, any verifiable populated settlement on the planet is considered notable on wikipedia, however short and uninformative the article is. If you spent your time expanding articles rather than mailing prods to fellow editors we'd build this together. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I see you now realised that it was vandalised. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amorite

Puffin, please revert the article to this version--I'm sure you have Twinkle or something like that. Thanks. 199.80.15.159 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did it by hand. When you are dealing with vandals, it's often a good idea to check the history and see if you need to revert further--you'd also have seen my all-caps plea for automated help. Thank you. 199.80.15.159 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just as you said that I had restored it but ok. I am using WP:Huggle which allows me to see previous revisions of pages but I am searching through quickly. Right now, I have been finding a lot of vandals, more than usual so I had to go through quickly. But thank you for pointing that out. I would suggest that you create an account. Puffin Lets talk! 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one, thanks. Speaking as an old person, sometimes it's more helpful to look hard at one edit and see if there's a history than to go for quantity. As you saw with Amorite, the user who also reverted one of those IP's edit went back to your version, and if one sees trustworthy names like Fae's, one is inclined to think that that took care of the matter, and so old vandalism (minor ones, but more than one or two) may remain. Thanks, 199.80.15.159 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thanks for the welcome, Puffin--keep up the good work. 199.80.15.159 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Turban

Just a note that I reverted the article a couple of edits further back than you did; after one OK edit (looked that way to me, anyway) an IP user deleted part of two paragraphs (including only part of a link) and then another IP broke a subhead format. I guess the vandal-finder you’re using only looks at the most recent change … I’ve posted a UW-delete1 and a UW-test1 to their respective Talk pages. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely look at the article names, all I know is that yesterday, there was a lot of vandalism being done by IP's and I did look at the previous revisions but there were so many to look through. I was using Huggle. Thanks anyway. Puffin Lets talk! 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls Club 5

Can you semi-protect the page so no more vandalism can occur. It's getting over whelming there. 67.189.172.164 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not an admin, I can't semi-protect it but I have filed a request Here for an admin to protect it. Hope I helped Puffin Lets talk! 11:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been semi protected for one month Puffin Lets talk! 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 67.189.172.164 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Please be careful using huggle, here you reverted my reversion of vandalism. No harm done, but I thought it best to let you know. Nevertheless, keep up the good vandal fighting work! Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably happened because when I revert vandalism, sometimes another vandal fighter does it split seconds before me, so I am reverting another good editors reversion is you understand. It's hard to avoid this and when I do spot this happening, I always edit the vandalism out. Thanks anyway. Puffin Lets talk! 11:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand and I wasn't critising, I just wanted to let you know it happened :) Best wishes Jdrewitt (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Usuari:RainCT

Hello Puffin. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Usuari:RainCT, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's pushing it to call that an article. Needs to go to WP:MFD. Thank you. GedUK  14:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; it was a language error I think. I've moved it to their userspace (User:RainCT) as it's effectively a userbox. Thanks! GedUK  14:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TY

Thank you for the caramel-coated and candy-coated apples. I like these guilt-free things because the blend of fruit and confection seems healthier than just eating candy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sending my thanks as well. Happy Halloween all! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Thanks for the candy apple. Happy Halloween!! -FASTILY (TALK) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice message you got there! That said, you left your zipper open on those pages. Might want to fix that ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

)

Re: Reverting Vandalism

Re your message: Oh, I know about Twinkle, Huggle, and everything else, I just prefer not to use them for a variety of reasons. I'm very "old school" as I've been around a long time when there were no scripts or programs besides popups (which I do use) and a few minimal scripts to help with WP:AIV (I remember the days before the bots looked after it, that was interesting). So that is the way I learned how to do things and I've stuck with it since then. Occasionally I will make mistakes like you noticed, but not too many. =) One of these days perhaps I will look into other tools again, but for now I'll stick with popups and lots of typing. =) What I really need to do is stop being so lazy and use the preview button instead of just clicking save right away. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article names

I noticed and am planning to reverse several article name changes, which had moved articles about NRHP-listed places in the Oyster Bay, New York area from their NRHP listing name to some other name, in my view without justification. I commented about this at Talk:House at 103 Roslyn Avenue#article name. Could you possibly please discuss there? Thanks. Keep up the good work editing! --doncram (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.

A few tips that you might find helpful:

  • Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
  • The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
  • Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:Puffin/header
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of January 06, 2025


Bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus against option 1 and no consensus for options 3 or 4. The former was roundly rejected, and the latter two received minimal support. Option 2 received about 7 !votes and option 5 around 10 !votes. The main arguments in favor of option 5 were the stigma of being flagged by a bot and the fact that reviewers sometimes make mistakes, but editors in favor of option 2 pointed out that some editors see value in having such a list, that the list wouldn't alert the submitter, and that being on the list does nothing to indicate whether the original review was correct. Thus, I find a rough consensus for option 2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any bots/scripts that detect that a submission has not changed (much) since the last time it was submitted? Ideally they would be able to autoreject or at least put them on a list. It might be possible to look at the previous reason for rejection, e.g. not meeting GNG, and if no new refs are added it is highly unlikely it will pass this time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if I remember correctly we decided not to have any sort of bot that does this. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a bot that does this would be a bad idea. One poor decline could easily lead to a series of them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, given @Ca's comment below, my comment is about putting them on a list. (Obviously, I think an autoreject bot would be even worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bad idea. Sometimes it's reasonable to resubmit without changes if the decline was incorrect or the submitter has clarified something. C F A 💬 16:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a bot that could add a Comment to the submission to let the submitter know that the submission has not changed and that they could continue working on it? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree having any kind of auto-decline bot is a bad idea. However, simply putting them in a list, like this one, sounds reasonable. It would be useful for finding easy declines/accepts, provided that the reviewers check the circumstances behind the resubmission. Ca talk to me! 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

  • Option 1: Yes. The bot should automatically reject decline any such submissions.
  • Option 2: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list, similar to the list of possible copyvios.
  • Option 3: Yes. The bot should notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 4: Yes. The bot should add such submissions to a list and notify the submitter and comment on the submission.
  • Option 5: No.

JJPMaster (she/they) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I changed Option 1 to decline rather than reject, as reject is a very specific term in AFC and I don't think that is what was meant here. Reject means the draft can never be resubmitted, due to violating WP:NOT or having extremely obvious and egregious non-notability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose option 1, per the discussion above this is a very bad idea. Support option 2, this seems harmless and seems worth tracking - as long as it is made absolutely clear that being rejected previously is not a reason to reject - if the original reason was correct and still applies then it can be rejected again for that reason. Neutral on the other options, but any comment/notification must make it clear that it is informational only and not a rejection. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers make mistakes. We should not be prejudicing someone's future AfC chances based on those mistakes any more than we already do - namely, that there is already a gigantic decline message on the draft. AfC is frequently a dispiriting, demoralizing, and baffling experience for new editors, mostly one of waiting and then receiving templated replies they do not fully understand. I oppose this, and I oppose any other efforts that would further increase new editor alienation in this way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, but as with Thryduulf, the comment on submission should be marked as informational and a reviewer will come by to assess the submission. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. Whether any changes have been made since the last decline is often something I look for when reviewing an article with declines, as it helps to see if the concerns from that last decline were addressed (if I feel like they are appropriate to the article as I see it), and this would be a benefit to a reviewer without being additionally "punishing" to a new editor. Reconrabbit 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as someone who doesn't review drafts but very occasionally comments on them, I think an {{AfC comment}}-like mention at the top would be easiest to work with, so I guess I'm at Option 3 or 4. Very dubious that a bot could reasonably handle the "(much)" in the preceding section header without unacceptable false positives and negatives, but detecting completely unchanged submissions would be both feasible and useful. —Cryptic 20:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option 5 - No. Oppose Options 1, 2, 3, 4. Support based on Asilvering's comment. Opposes are my own, doubtless with others. As a reviewer I declare myself capable of checking, and I do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 but instead of adding to a list, add to a category (preferably a hidden one). Yes, definitely notify the submitter and comment on it, but having a list may discourage the submitter if they see that their draft is listed on a list. Having a hidden category would be better (at least imho) where a parameter of Template:AFC submission can add the draft into the category. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though with all options, the reviewer would still do the same work... Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I wouldn't oppose a bot that automatically leaves a comment, but I don't really see the point either. Reviewers should be evaluating based on the current state of the draft — previous declines really shouldn't matter in most cases. I think this would encourage summary "no change" declines without actually looking at the content of the draft. C F A 💬 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. It would encourage reviewers to "decline" the draft just because it hasn't changed since last review. However, thinking now, it might encourage editors to keep working on the draft because they see that "it hasn't changed since last review". If that's the case, reviewers should "wait". So perhaps after the bot leaves a comment, reviewers should wait at least a couple minute before reviewing in case the editor wants to add content? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My position is that if they did not see being declined as reason to keep working on the draft, they are unlikely to have a positive view of an automated message telling them that the draft hasn't changed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No too easy to game. The simplest bot would just compare revisions. A submitter would then just have to add like a space or a few words to change it. A more complicated bot would flag changes that were too small or simple, but then that just encourages submitters to ramble. A bot can't assess the quality of a change, only editors can. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose to 1 as bad reviews do exist. Also, sometimes submitters have discussed it with the reviewer and been told to resubmit for a second opinion etc.
Weak Oppose 2, 3 & 4 as I'm not convinced a bot will accurately determine what no substantive change is and I see little value in just flagging straight re-submits
Support 5 as de-facto option left KylieTastic (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 4 especially with several disruptors (and one dynamic IP so block doesn't help) who just do drive by submissions. Frustrating to the editor to receive another decline through no fault of their own. Having them in the queue is a waste of reviewers' time though when it's a quick decline because the improvements haven't been made. I think it's less wrong decline and more no discussion about why the feedback was wrong that's the red flag. Star Mississippi 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards Option 5, but for those pages/editors engaged in a problematic level of drive-by submissions, I wonder whether a completely different approach might work better. For example: If you think the previous decline was correct, and you also think it's a drive-by re-nom, then move the article to the mainspace and send it straight to AFD. If it's kept, then the submitter was correct, and the previous decline was wrong. Also, it's now out of the AFC queues. However, if it's deleted, salt the page name(s) in both Draft: and mainspace for the next year (or two?), so that AFC can be done with it. Either way, it's no longer AFC's problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Option 1. Frankly, trusting fellow reviewers to check how much a draft has changed since a previous decline is reasonable to do. Letting a Bot do something creates an option to game the system. We don't need that. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option 2, neutral on Option 4, and oppose the rest. I do not see the point in notifying submitters when they already are aware they did not make any changes. Perhaps they wanted another review. Putting unchanged drafts in a hidden list like the copyvio one seems optimal as it reduces complexity and unnecessary messages to submitters. It would make finding easy declines and disruptive drive by submissions easier to find. I also support adding a verbiage that being unchanged should not be the sole reason to decline again. Ca talk to me! 00:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 - Reviewers should be instructed, more clearly if necessary, to check whether the draft has been revised since the last decline, and to use human judgment in deciding what is enough improvement. There is no need for automated aid, which could make mistakes and could be gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, at least, option 4, at best. Yes, reviewers make mistakes, but they make mistakes in both directions, and should also consider the guidance inherent in a previous rejection. BD2412 T 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 preferably, but I'm okay with option 5 as well (TBH, I don't think this is a major problem in the bigger scheme of things, and the details could be tricky). Also oppose option 1, regardless of whether it was intended to say 'reject', or merely 'decline'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: When I say details could be tricky, I didn't mean in a technical sense, but rather in defining what the trigger condition of "changed (much)" actually means. Size change doesn't always tell us much: only a few kb might have changed, yet the draft was completely rewritten; conversely, a large kb change could mean that the author simply deleted the earlier AfC templates. Number of sources, ditto: adding ten new rubbish sources to the earlier rubbish sources still adds up to only rubbish; whereas using the same sources but citing them correctly might have resolved the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5. AfC reviewers sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with areas that they are not familiar with. (I can't count how many drafts on academics have been rejected and told to supply GNG, and I've also seen rejections of drafts on politicians that clearly passed NPOL.) Creators should always be allowed to ask for a second opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 Per asilvering and Espresso Addict. I would further that; reviewers often make mistakes....specifically declining articles for reasons that are not decline criteria. Also some reviewers tend to pass only unusually safe passes. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 per Asilvering. If a reviewer makes a mistake (which often happens), the submitter shouldn't be even more penalized for it. Same if they just want another opinion on their draft. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 4 per Star Mississippi. I'll add: Resubmitting an unchanged draft is a sign of a problem even if the declining reviewer had made a mistake. And it will rarely be the case that they have made a mistake given a creator who resubmits an identical draft, which very strongly correlates with the draft being poor in the first place and not deserving of acceptance.—Alalch E. 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5 (do nothing). Like Primefac below, I'm surprised this got the RfC stage given the overwhelmingly negative reception in the original discussion, and hope the closer of this discussion will take that into account. AfC reviewers make mistakes but, more to the point, people can have good faith disagreements about the suitability of an article. If the submitter disagrees with a reviewer, they have every right to ask for a second opinion without edit warring with a bot or making pointless changes. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 or 5 - Given the unevenness of reviews, authors have legitimate reasons for seeking a second, third or fourth review. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion

Um... didn't this get fairly roundly shot down in the original discussion? Why does it need a full RFC to work out any further details? Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only Option 1 was outright rejected in the above discussion. The rest were counterproposals that seemed to have at least some support. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, RFC just seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something that didn't really have a lot of discussion and could have probably been dealt with in-house. Carry on I suppose. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second your 'meh'. Why are we going through this extra layer. If it ain't broke don't fix it! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be Devil's Advocate for an RFC I've opposed, but I think we've got more, clearer answers to the question in the few hours since this RfC opened than we had in the entire earlier discussion, so there's that. And I do think AfC is pretty broke and needs some fixing. I just think this is tinkering in the wrong direction. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here and talking about reviewers making mistakes, let me make my perennial plea that, if you see, this, you go ask the reviewer about it on their talk page. We all have to learn somehow! And if the reviewer is making lots of mistakes, it will be easier for any single editor to figure this out later if there's a track record of them on their talk page. By the way, for those who haven't learned this trick yet: the AFCH script will allow you to resubmit drafts as though you were the original submitter. If you think something was inappropriately declined, you can resubmit it to the queue yourself and then immediately accept it, or resubmit it and leave a comment explaining why you did so. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want to resubmit a draft on behalf of another user so they get the AfC communications rather than you, such as the Accept notification, you can use {{subst:submit|Creator's username}}. The other option is to click the Resubmit button then change the User (u=) from your name to theirs. S0091 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFCH script will do this for you automatically. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh..ok, I see now. You review on an already declined draft. I had never clicked the Submit button because I assumed it worked the same way as the Resubmit button in the decline message but the AFCH script gives you options to assign the submitter. I can't tell you how many times I have resubmitted drafts using the manual methods I outline above. The more you know! :) S0091 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian state symbols

It seems we have a new instalment in the series of bogus Indian state symbols, this time with Draft:List of Indian state vegetables. Different IP from the previous ones, but probably the same user. Just flagging this here to avoid a repeat of the earlier sich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared up the rest of the related junk edits from them. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This time, it's Draft:List of Indian state cuisines. Curious to see what's coming next? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. They should be warned then blocked for making hoaxes. KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as hoaxes and blocked for block evasion. KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi I was just curious, I have done (alot, as I know other editors have as well) of AFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ozzie10aaaa/AfC_log, I was wondering when the end of year awards (or recognition) for AFC are given?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa, what end-of-year awards are you talking about? I can't remember any, and I just checked the archives for December 2022 and 2023 and didn't see anything (but could have missed it). -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed(hoped) that similar to NPP [1] there would be some sort of award/barnstar for 2024,since the year is practically over, for all the AFC's done over the past year(for the editors)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if there is a list of the top 20 AFC editors I would be happy to hand them out(below is a example)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the NPP ones rely on the patrol logs. AfC does not have any central logging so there is no good data, especially for > 6 months when a lot of the declined drafts are deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Top_AfC_reviewers? qcne (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been running for a year I guess you could check the data from the last day of each month and add together but it's only been running since 12 November 2024. KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is better than nothing...Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Top AfC reviewers#Last 1 year...I could leave the barnstar for all 100 ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's an approximation but not sure how it's getting its data but its a bit short. It says SafariScribe has 5418 reviews, but there log User:SafariScribe/AfC_log has 6846 entries. For myself it says 2889 reviews but my logs User:KylieTastic/AfC log show 6200. I guess it does not count deleted items and I do a lot of 0 day junk bashing. KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well if there are no outright objections, I can do it Monday/Tuesday...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm and it's a bit of positive feedback which in the current world seems needed. So as far as I'm concerned go for it and thanks Ozzie for thinking of something positive. KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, Ozzie10aaaa, that your edits missed the closing |} and thus broke the pages you added it to. I believe someone else is cleaning it up, but for next time please make sure you do one or two, check things are working, and then blast through the list. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing it out (I had zero idea about |} ), will take your advice,,,Merry Christmas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for example ...

The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
message

Perhaps add to reviewing instructions?

Twice in the last week I've seen two AfCs passed which had previously AfD'd versions. Both of these AfC approvals were quickly tagged for G4. One of them had just been deleted at AfD and was under deletion review when the filer created a new draft which was miraculously reviewed in two days and quickly passed. This really screwed up the active DRV, which I was forced to close procedurally even though the filer had almost no support from commenters. What instructions do we give AfC reviewers about checking deleted edits and deleted versions from two days previously? Passing submissions which are currently at DRV? I'm aware that Articles for Creation is one approved way to recreate a deleted page, however this project surely has some guidance on the matter. Seems this should be on a checklist somewhere ("Is this namespace currently at a deletion process? Quickfail if yes."), checking a new draft against deleted versions. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is of the same name then the AFCH tool says if it was previously deleted and so that should lead reviewers to look at the previous reasons. Since the core purpose of AfC is to determine if it would be deleted at AfD checking the previous deletions should be a key point of any review. Personally I have always thought the previously deleted warning should be a bit larger and remind people to check. KylieTastic (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers might be concerned about readily being able to view previous deleted versions. As an admin, I'd be happy to spend a few minutes helping reviewers with temporarily undeleting such material. If I didn't possess the tools, I'd go to WP:Requests for undeletion and ask to see the page temporarily before I approved the draft. I'd likely approve such a request 99% of the time. BusterD (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with KylieTastic about previous deletions needing be to more prominent than what they are already (well, I say I disagree but KylieTastic is usually right, thus their Tasticness, so likely I am missing something). When a reviewer clicks "Review", there is a popup that lists all the deletions of an article of the same title and the logged reason/notes (G11, AfD, etc.), which to me is very clear. I think this particular scenario is a one-off. Outside if extenuating circumstances or a mistake/miss, I cannot think of reason a reviewer would ever accept a draft that had just been deleted via an AfD discussion (much less one that had been deleted multiple times such as this one if my guess of which article this is about is correct). Also, I have never seen a need to see deleted versions. If I think it might meet G4, I just nominate it and an admin can make to decision but G4 should be very rare for drafts as one of the uses for AfC is to get an independent review of previously deleted articles. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it often but I thought AFCH just said "The page xxxxx has been deleted Y time(s). View deletion log". That was the only part I was thinking could be a tad larger font as it gets lost compared to the big Accept/Decline/Comment buttons. If you then click on "View deletion log" (I think) it then shows the details but no auto show. SO actually if that was true rather than larger, it should just show the full details. However, I'm very tired I may just be remembering it wrong and can't find an example. KylieTastic (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your memory is correct, Kylie. I don't think I've ever had any trouble noticing it but I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's easy to miss. @BusterD, were these AfC accepts both from the same reviewer? -- asilvering (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two different reviewers, both worthy wikipedians. The latest example, the one which I spoke about above is 15.ai, reviewed by User:Pokelego999. The other one was Nicolás Atanes, but I found out later the reviewer (User:Qcne) was presented with Nicolas Atanes and in the moment didn't see the previous deletions. IMHO, both reviewers made calls I might have made myself. BusterD (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my end, I didn't see anything related to deletion logs. I don't know if I missed it or if it just wasn't present, but I had no indication it had previously gone through anything since I hadn't noticed any logs. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091 is correct the text is big enough as I have just seen it again on Draft:Toula Gordillo. However, I do think the default state of the history should be expanded as it is important information that all reviewers should be aware of. KylieTastic (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now with fresh example, I agree the default should show the log info so you don't have to click on "view deletion log". It would actually be great to know it upfront but I'm not sure that's possible because the draft/sandbox title might change before a review which introduces various complications. However, it is aggravating to conduct an assessment then find out the deletion history after clicking Review. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class assessment and the Banner Shell

Is the class assessment within the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template meant to be a snapshot of the class at creation, or, is it meant to "grow" with the article. I ask this, as now class allocation is set in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which reports a conflict if the class in the banner shell is different from any other class assignment. If the "class=" parameter from AfC is meant to be a snapshot at creation, then the Banner Shell code should ignore it if it's not the same as the overall "class=" setting. If it's meant to change as the article improves over time, then we can just remove it from the AfC template and just use the Banner shell assignment. Ping User: Tom.Reding & User:MSGJ as the banner shell experts. The-Pope (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it would be a snapshot. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be a snapshot, if it's meant to track the 'quality' of articles coming out of the AfC process at the time of acceptance/publication.
Conversely, it could evolve over time, if it's meant to track the quality of AfC-created articles at some future time of such tracking or analysis.
FWIW, I had assumed the former, which is why I give it the rating suggested by the rating tool, even if the other projects take theirs from the shell. Perfectly happy to be proven wrong on this, obvs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template should probably state which one it is. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Reviewers obviously need to know which way to apply this, and ideally all do it the same way. But future readers (under the 'snapshot' model, that is) would also need to know why the AfC rating is potentially different from the others. ("Hey, my article is rated A, why is AfC still marking it down as Start?!") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was changed some time ago so that the AFCH tool only puts a single assessment in the shell like all other projects. Do you have a case to illustrate the issue? KylieTastic (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Assigning_WikiProjects_to_Articles KylieTastic (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that settles it - putting a single assessment in the shell is the opposite of a permanent snapshot. My thinking is similar to DoubleGrazing's, except that I assumed the latter (evolving over time in the shell), mostly because {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} is not in Category:Custom class masks of WikiProject banners, which it would have to be for snapshotting to be a thing. Since that and several other things would have to change for the snapshot model to be operational, there doesn't seem to be an impetus for it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this gets brought up every once in a while. The assessment is more for tracking current status. Personally I would advocate for removing quality rankings for our project - we do not improve articles to a higher standard, so saying that it is a "GA-class AFC article" is somewhat misleading since we're really only tracking how far its come since creation. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any wikiproject banners that take a snapshot. That would be complicated to code, and counterintuitive to how wikiproject banners normally work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, the GA/FA Template has a piece on timestamps as to which was the review version. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of WikiProject banners, which inherit their class from the banner shell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood... I thought each project's rating can be either set to take it from the banner shell, or set to a particular rating value. I had assumed that if it's set to take it from the shell, it will change as the shell rating changes. Whereas (again, I had assumed) if it's set to a particular value, it would remain fixed, unless/until it's manually changed. (This is what I was referring to as 'snapshot'.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be done, yes, but only for projects (like MILHIST) that opt in to that functionality. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Moved to WP:TEA#Help (diff

Primefac (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disable AFCH if there is an ongoing AfD

The AFCH tool should be disabled if there is an ongoing AfD at the corresponding mainspace title, as with Draft:Raegan Revord and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination), for example. GTrang (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? A draft like that should be declined as exists anyway, so disabling AFCH would mean that we wouldn't be able to do that. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, that (decline as 'exists') is what GTrang did with this draft, but it was reverted as just extra administration for no reason (I think). Which then put the draft back in the pool. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone that edit as the AFD is clearly trending towards the article being kept. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and redirected the draft to the mainspace article, which is what I like to do in these situations to avoid duplication. I think editors should be encouraged to work on the mainspace article and not the draft, so that everyone is using their time efficiently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted. NatGertler, can you please elaborate on how you plan to move a draft over an existing mainspace page? Did you perhaps mean that you plan to manually copy paste merge some pieces of the draft instead? In which case, the draft would be fine as a redirect, since the page history can easily be checked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the AfD, there is reasonable support for (if the article survives AfD) deleting the version that is currently in mainspace and moving this draft one into mainspace at the same address. This version is in much better shape, and there is nothing substantial in the mainspace one that needs to be merged into this. If folks are to work on either of them, we want them working on this one, which is likely to be the surviving version in some form (whether it survives as a draft or in mainspace depends on the outcome of the AfD, but even at the most complicated take it will be merged into the mainspace one, so may as well have it here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think this should be de-duplicated at some point, but with your comment in mind, I suppose it's OK to wait until after the AFD is over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Declined AfC submissions resubmitted without any changes is live!

Per the outcome of this RfC, which is shown above, and a request filed at WP:BOTREQ by User:JJPMaster, the above page is now live and ready for reviewers to use, maintained by User:MolecularBot. It's actually caught 1 already in only the couple hours its been live, see Draft:M S Narasimha Murthy. :)

There's also a website I've made hosted on Toolforge to look up an article and see if it's resubmitted without changes, if that's more your thing.

For adding an item to the list, the requirement is that it has an AFC submission wizard edit, directly after an AFCH decline.

For removing an item from the list, the requirement is that it has a edit that is not done with AFCH or the AFC submission wizard (note: it's been very kindly suggested by Bunnypranav that it should maybe do some detecting to see if a edit is meaningful or not, any suggestions for when/when not a edit counts as meaningful are most welcome!)

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any feedback for this bot task, or would like anything changed about it. Thanks! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also btw an API is also available by sending a GET request to https://molecularbot2.toolforge.org/resubAPI.php?pageName=test, replacing test with the name of the page, excluding "Draft:"! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing the bot—on the new year nonetheless! Ca talk to me! 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying out using Microsoft Copilot to discuss notability of a particular topic

I'm not sure if people have tried this out or not. I searched AfC talk archives for "AI", "Gemini", "Copilot", and I saw that people have been talking about AI generated submissions, but I haven't seen any discussion on doing something like this.

So, anyway, I'll seek to share the dialog:

https://github.com/davidkitfriedman/general/blob/main/2025_01_02_dialog_with_Copilot_on_notability_of_GlobalProtect.md

I asked Copilot to argue against notability for GlobalPlatform, and then also to argue for notability.

Initially I just asked it what are some of the major consortia that Google is a part of.

Copilot responsed and then also prompted with, "Is there a specific area of Google's partnerships you're particularly interested in?".

And so I told it why I had asked the question initially, and it cited Wikipedia's policies, and then asked, "Do you have a specific consortium in mind that you're researching?"

I could mention that I did see this mentioned in Wikipedia:Artificial Intelligence, so perhaps editors don't feel that it's necessarily worth discussing with LLMs whether a particular topic meets notability or not.

When exploring AI techniques and systems, the community consensus is to prefer human decisions over machine-generated outcomes until the implications are better understood.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... what people choose to do on their own time to not think for themselves is their own concern; if an LLM tells someone that a subject is notable, but the subject is not notable, we're no worse off than the Fiver writers that get paid to write shitty prose about non-notable grocery store owners. If the LLM tells the editor that a subject is notable, and they are, then all they've really done is waste their own time, since the subject would pass our criteria anyway. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLMs do not think in the traditional human way because that's not what they're trained to do. Their job is to provide compelling output. The problem with that is that LLMs don't know what truth or factual accuracy is, i. e., they don't know if what they've just made up makes any sense. In a nutshell, discussing with an LLM is like talking to a parrot on steroids. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several editors assuring us that their obviously LLM-generated draft has been painstakingly written to comply with all Wikipedia requirements for notability, verifiability, and other core policies yada yada... and then it turns out the said draft doesn't cite a single source. So if the editor hasn't the first clue about our requirements, then the LLM clearly won't impose one on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LLM and Wikipedia don't mix very well. In my opinion, in almost all cases, it's just a timesink. LLM is useful for certain non-Wikipedia things, but is not a great fit here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African legislators

Just found out why we're seeing so many new drafts (mostly very short stubs) on legislators, esp. Nigerian ones, lately: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Event:African_Legislators_in_Red This runs until the end of the month, and one of the rules is that the articles must get into the main space by then, so expect to see some fast track requests at the help desk as the deadline approaches... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. People can wait. We don't expedite for contests. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... I guess we do. Vanderwaalforces (intentionally not pinged) seems to be participating and reviewing drafts from this thing. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it's individual reviewers making the offer to do it, seems fine to me. Not really different from someone, say, going through and reviewing all the OKA drafts (I've done this) or volunteering to help out with an editathon as a reviewer (I've done this, too). But I vote we ping Vanderwaalforces to each and every help desk request, if they arise. :P -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do ping me if need arise! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, I don't have any issue with them (or anyone else) making it a personal priority to help out, I'm just saying we-as-a-Project should not be expediting things. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accepting a lot of these as inherently notable since I tend to camp out on the recently submitted feed but, yeah, I don't see why these endless stubs need to go through AfC..? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, they get money for this? I didn't think that was permitted? qcne (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I could find (which was little more than this) it appears above-board, since they're not being paid to edit anything specific. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably their way of having a check/balance for the stubs so that they don't have the issue that some other editathons have had where people spam utter garbage and maybe it gets reverted. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac Correct! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne They actually need to go through AfC as a "damage control" both for English Wikipedia and the project itself. Also, these editors are mostly new, so yeah! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense :) qcne (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are easy to accept. I haven't come across too many issues (which is uncommon for contests with rewards), though some of the longer drafts do tend to lean on the promotional side. I've also found at least 3 copyvios stemming from this event from unrelated Copypatrol work, so be on the lookout for that I guess. C F A 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA Oh yes! I, in fact, disqualified one of the contestants for copyvio. I am especially not taking that lightly. By the way, I cannot thank you enough for keeping an eye on the article and tagging them with the WikiProject template, kudos! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nominated for MFD as not notable after decline

A draft BLP on a politician who does not meet political notability was declined, and then nominated for deletion by the reviewer who declined it. It was my understanding that AFC reviewers should know that drafts are not reviewed for notability or sanity. Either an AFC reviewer has been given access to the script who hasn't been adequately briefed as to how drafts are reviewed, including that they are only nominated for deletion in rare circumstances, or an editor who is not an AFC reviewer is reviewing drafts. Do the guidelines for reviewers need clarifying? We know that sometimes New Page reviewers mistakenly review new drafts with the same standards as they use to review new articles, but apparently some AFC reviewers also don't know when t not to send drafts to XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be that the reviewer didn't know, and they could be gently told how to do it correctly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "hidden" rule or anything but I agree with Eek that "they didn't know" is probably the most likely scenario, and they should politely be a) informed, and b) asked to withdraw the MFD. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bashir Muhammad Hussari Galadanchi. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left the MFDer a message at their user talk about not MFDing drafts like this one in the future. They were receptive to the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List

is linked on the header, but I believe serves no purpose. This vaguely-named page doesn't have any "list" of submission by itself but links to two other lists. One of them, Wikipedia:AfC sorting, is already linked to by the header.

I propose it to be merged to its parent page /Submissions to reduce confusion and the clutter in the header. Only thing that really needs to be merged is the mention of Template:AfC statistics. Ca talk to me! 14:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't worked since at least 2022; you're just the second person to notice. Feel free to pull whatever you need from the history and plonk it elsewhere if that makes sense. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little merging issue

Hello. Following a personal request for an AFC, I thought I would give it a try in spite of an article already existing as a redirect (never did). I over estimated my skills and need a little help :)

So the old article was a redirection (Lahcen Ahansal). I removed the redirection. Could not "Yes" the draft article under the right name (Draft:Lahcen Ahansal) becase of the already existing article. Thought I could approve it under a different spelling Lacen Ahansal and then merge their histories.

Ok, histories are not merging. What am I missing ? Anthere (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand, maybe because I am thinking about a lot of things. It does appear that Primefac has done something like that cleared the issue. Cheers!Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthere, there are a couple of other things you should have done. For anyone who isn't an admin, this is what should have been done
  • Request a {{db-afc-move}} on the redirect (this might have been declined given the old article's history, but then I -- as an admin -- would have probably just done a page swap)
  • Request a page swap at WP:RM/TR
For an admin, the options are:
  • Pageswap the draft and article
  • Move the old page (without redirect) to a disambiguated title
Copy/pasting a page to another location is not a good way to get a page to a specific title. Just to clear up SafariScribe's confusion, I just did a page swap on the two pages to put the new article at the correct title, while preserving the history of the old page.
As a minor note, Special:MergeHistory is only available to admins, which is why you couldn't use it. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Struck, updated, and inserted: 14:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anthere is an admin. Is showing blue in my user highlighter script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say. And on multiple projects, it seems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
le sigh Forgive me for not having special admin-script glasses on.
A histmerge wasn't possible because there are (effectively) parallel histories; there was nothing that could be merged from the new page into the old page because of diffs from 2010 at the old page blocking the 2025 edits from the new. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This explains that... I felt vastly stupid :) Indeed, I could have swapped the two versions to have the new article history sitting at the right title. But I was trying hard to maintain both histories, which in fact was not really needed. Hmmm.
Situation is perfect now. Real author of current version is credited. All good. Thanks a lot for fixing. Anthere (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to help, feel free to drop me a line any time you have histmerge questions, there are some who would say I'm an authority on the matter :-) Primefac (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English drafts

I've just declined yet another non-English draft (not the 1st one of the day, not even the 3rd, and that's just me!). In the Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English there are nearly 1,000 such declines. Would it be a good idea to put something in the wizard to warn authors that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and if they want to submit content in another language they should head to the relevant language version instead? It's mildly annoying to review these drafts, but I can imagine it's much more frustrating to put in all that effort, only to be told afterwards that it was all for nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but if they're non-English-speaking then what are the realistic chances that they're going to read yet another banner telling them they shouldn't create pages in languages other than English? I'd rather avoid banner bloat if possible, and if the subject is notable it's a quick thing to decline as non-Eng and let them (or G13) sort it out. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience they're not all (or even most?) "non-English-speaking"; many do subsequently communicate in English at the help desk and/or talk pages, and some even resubmit an English-translated draft. It's just that many seem genuinely surprised that the different language versions are in fact separate projects, and that submitting a Bulgarian (say) draft here doesn't help get it into the Bulgarian Wikipedia.
But yes, I take the point about banner bloat. Also, just because we warn them, doesn't mean they won't go against the warning regardless – after all, we get plenty of undisclosed COI/PAID submissions although the wizard clearly warns against these. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As usual, I'm not strictly opposed to adding something, just that my knee-jerk reaction is to wonder whether it's worth doing so... Primefac (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering how feasible it may be to have a bot detect the language being used, and send a note to that editor in that language. BD2412 T 16:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of non-English welcome templates, not sure a bot is needed, just a reviewer that doesn't mind taking an extra minute or two to leave one. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Jimbo instead of the user who submitted the draft

I accepted a draft created and submitted by an IP user[2], but the script actually notified Jimbo Wales instead of the IP user, I wonder what caused this? - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: the submitting user changed the draft !ownership to Jimbo.
Or possibly Jimbo created it himself. In which case, you should go and warn him against editing logged-out. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think you should consider removing the editnotice on your talk page. Asking people not to leave you abusive messages seems to be rather pointless and unfair on the rest of us who have to read this message. Just a suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect revert, no reason given (by you), incorrect statement that I had not given an Edit Summary

1) You reverted my edit with no explanation.[3]

2) Wrote to my talk page claiming that I had removed information without explanation. (In fact, I left an edit summary with three reasons).[4][5]

I know the rules very well indeed. Notability is not established in Wikipedia by association, and articles are encouraged to stay on topic. Specifically, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." and it's WP:NOT "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I.e., on topic. I.e., bullet points such as this are utterly inappropriate "His wife Jane Slidell was sister of US Senator John Slidell "

You can consult with others, but instead you might just consider the implication of an article of some well-known figure who has hundreds of relatives and in-laws with Wiki articles.

76.126.217.195 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the note on the top of my page, do not leave abusive messages about Huggle as I was quickly scanning for vandalism and from what I saw, you removed content. Please try again with a detailed edit summary. Just to remind you of the note Puffin Lets talk! 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right but...

Although in my opinion it was correct to revert it, edits like these are test edits rather than vandalism, and are a common way for users that would like to experiment with Wikipedia. Thank you, and keep up the good anti-vandalism work. Minimac (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do use the "huggletest" option whereas other users just automatically use the vandalism button. However, there were a lot of warnings stacked up at that time, so I just used the quick way. The vandal warning does provide a link to the sandbox, so it doesn't really matter. Thanks anyway. Puffin Lets talk! 21:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits to Peter Lilley and The Palestine Telegraph

Hello. Back in November, you reverted the removal of content from these articles, which resulted in restoring poorly sourced negative allegations against living people. This is not appropriate, per WP:BLP policy. These are the specific edits: [6],[7]. I'm going to assume good faith and that you simply didn't examine the reference for these claims, because it is transparently not from a reliable source. Note that the editor removing the content was the one who added it in the first place; perhaps he realised the source was unreliable and was correcting his mistake. Your presumed attempts to revert vandalism actually made both articles worse. Please take more care in future, particularly when dealing with controversial allegations about living people. Robofish (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair! I'm always getting blamed for EVERYTHING that I do. I was quickly patrolling for vandalism and as you can clearly see, it may have been a mistake. You don't have to bite me because of it. Also, the user didn't even give an edit summary. Please don't call me horrible names. Puffin Lets talk! 17:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hap Glaudi

I've tagged Hap Glaudi for speedy deletion under criterion G11, the article promotes his life and is very much written like a newspaper editorial or obituary that only promotes the good of a person rather then mentioning the negative aspects of their life. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:25pm • 11:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, that notice at the top of your talk page is rather encouraging and I'd suggest you remove it per WP:DNFT also when reviewing recent changes try not to skim through edits and take some time to review the edits and see if they're actually unconstructive rather than making an instant decision. Automated tools are meant as aids, they're no substitute for one's own judgment though! Otherwise, keep up the good work! Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:52pm • 11:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Quest University page

Dear Puffin, Thanks for the message about the Quest University wiki entry. I appreciate your efforts to keep wikipedia's quality high.

Let me explain my changes. The Quest University page was woefully out of date and did not have supporting references. I have gone in to update information, add citations to the proper documents when possible, and remove redundant or inaccurate information.

  • I've added details about the university and its programs based not on speculation, but on current university documents. (See the sections on academics and study abroad, for instance.)
  • I've provided some details about institutional accreditation -- and provided supporting links for those details.
  • I've cleaned up the section on academics, adding references to the specific nature of the program (including references to the documents that guide the degree program), to the quality of the program based on the NSSE surveys, and provided some details about the program.
  • I've updated the tuition costs and the information about average costs in Canada.
  • I've removed the section on "enrolment" because the current enrolment is already mentioned elsewhere in the document.
  • I have begun to work on the "history" section of the page to provide a more detailed account of the origins and development of the university.

I can go back and redo these changes, adding more detail to the description of the changes if necessary. Please advise.

All the best,

ajl-quc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajl-quc (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Ajl-quc (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Puffin&oldid=422173561"