User talk:Ganesha811

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woke Mind Virus[edit]

I would like to contest your decision to hold with the minority and merge the Woke Mind Virus page. I believe consensus was emerging for a Keep, and that at the very least more time should have been given for that one. I do not know what the process is to appeal such a move, but I think your merge move was premature if not incorrect. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I appreciated your reasoned arguments in favor of keep, but after re-reading the linked policies and considering the !votes for deletion as well as those explicitly for merge, I felt that a merger which retained large parts of the material reflected the overall consensus. If you wish to see the decision reversed, you are able to do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, I'm happy to discuss it more and explain my reasoning in further detail if you'd prefer to talk it through first. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you feel the Keep !vote arguments were not sufficient to satisfy a Keep of the article. I think the reliable sources demonstrate a strong case for this subject to have its own page and not just to be a small sub-section lost in the large Woke page, and it seemed that the largest share of the consensus on the AfD agreed with that sentiment, so I am not sure of your reading of the "consensus" as apparent on the AfD discussion. I will contest it, yes, if we cannot resolve this here. I think keeping the AfD open for a little while longer would have made sense too, and I think that the AfD was closed prematurely even if you disagree on what the apparent consensus in support of Keep was. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are not a vote, as you know, and in any case the numbers were not particularly lopsided here. The sources cited by you and others to indicate the term should have a standalone page did not appear to all be reliable or in-depth coverage of the term, rather than mere mentions, as was pointed out in the discussion. I thought the most considered Keep arguments were effectively countered by others, while the arguments in favor of merger were not. There was clearly no consensus for wholesale deletion. A merge today does not mean that the article could not be recreated as a standalone in the future, provided that the necessary secondary sourcing focusing on that term in-depth comes into existence or is located. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are not a vote as you mentioned, but rather are based on WP policy. One of my comments had directly addressed the "reliable or in-depth coverage of the term, rather than mere mentions" point you are mentioning. There are in fact numerous (at least half a dozen or so) reliable sources which write about both woke and woke mind virus as independent terms with their own unique coverage that I was able to find with very little research. A more exhaustive search quite readily finds many more, perhaps a dozen or more (many of which were cited on the article itself if reviewed). I addressed this in a response to one editor named "buidhe" I believe in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woke Mind Virus with a Rolling Stone, Snopes, and The Wallstreet Journal piece directly cited. A fleeting mention of WP:NOPAGE was offered as counter, but no rebuttal was made of the sources provided. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arora Akanksha for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arora Akanksha is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arora Akanksha (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Second Thoughts Band (10:54, 6 May 2024)[edit]

Hello. Ive just joined. How Do I publish what ive written? --Second Thoughts Band (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could submit an article via WP:AfC - Articles for Creation. It will be reviewed and commented on by an experienced editor. However, I should caution you that writing about an organization you are involved in, such as a band, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia (see WP:COI editing). It's also a violation of the WP:Username policy to have a name which represents a group (such as a band) rather than an individual. I recommend you start fresh with a new account or request a WP:Username change. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Lallonier (12:43, 6 May 2024)[edit]

Hi, I'm in the process of drafting an article with other students. Is there anyways for them to have access to the draft I have created to edit alongside me?

Thank you for your help, --Lallonier (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Draft articles should be public - pretty much everything on Wikipedia is. If you create an article in Draft space, they will be able to access it via the same link you do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Woke Mind Virus[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Woke Mind Virus. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC) This is my first time doing a deletion review by the way so I am not sure if I have "properly" notified you or linked to the correct page. My apologies in advance if I have posted in error. Thanks.Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 3 is where it can be found to save you some time if that is instead where I should have linked. I appreciate your demeanor and polite attitude throughout this process. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - we'll see where other folks wind up, but I also appreciate your thoughtful question and responses. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Annabel RL on Tabnine (02:46, 9 May 2024)[edit]

Hello, you are my mentor. How do I handle a topic without really knowing what they’re talking about. Thank you, Your student Annabel RL. --Annabel RL (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Is there a specific situation/topic you had in mind? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Hi, Ganesha. I just got Interstate 85 in North Carolina promoted to GA status. Can you tell me how I can nominate it for DYK status? I'm a little confused and would like some guidance. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I mean by adding a citation for the source, without using the citation template. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can just write out the citation (and link it) in prose, like this:
Source: ...Filosofova came in, formally dressed to go to a party afterward. One of the nihilists commented nastily, "If she comes dressed like a doll to a serious meeting like this, it must mean she has nothing to do," to which Filosofova replied "Clothes do not make the woman."
Page 77, from Ruthchild, Rochelle G. (2009). "Reframing public and private space in mid-nineteenth century Russia : the triumvirate of Anna Filosofova, Nadezhda Stasova, and Mariia Trubnikova". In Worobec, Christine D. (ed.). The human tradition in imperial Russia. The human tradition around the world. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-3737-8
If you have any issues, let me know and I can pop by and try and fix it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 29zervg (18:50, 14 May 2024)[edit]

If i edit something and the information is wrong do i get in trouble? --29zervg (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's unintentional, no, though your edit may be reverted. If you deliberately vandalize or add false information to Wikipedia, you will be warned, and eventually banned. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Um0klinst (19:35, 15 May 2024)[edit]

hi, if I have made edits and added new content to an article, but failed to add citations and another editor removed the new content and archived it, how do I get the archived content. --Um0klinst (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every article has a page history which you can look at to find previously extant text. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Maria Trubnikova[edit]

Congratulations, Ganesha811! The article you nominated, Maria Trubnikova, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]