User talk:PharyngealImplosive7

Sanction awareness and archives

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding Shahrak-e Salman-e Farsi

I seconded several of your proposed deletions today, for small locations. I didn't get involved if the reported population was between 125 and 999. If it was much more than 1,000, I left a note on the talk pages that it's possibly notable. That leaves Shahrak-e Salman-e Farsi, which based on numbers alone, is probably a real village and possibly notable. I hope you don't mind my triage. For this one, we can do a more detailed search Before going to WP:AfD. Thank you for doing this thankless task. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review these articles I nominated for deletion. I think we should do a detailed search for Shahrak-e Salman-e Farsi. Nothing much seems to come up from a quick google search but it still may be notable. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Flood of PRODs

Hello, PharyngealImplosive7,

You PROD'd a lot of articles today, according to Category:Proposed deletion as of 28 January 2025, we'll have over 120 PROD'd articles next week come due when our average daily number of articles which are PROD'd is around 20-30 per day. Each article that is tagged for Proposed Deletion has to be individually assessed by an administrator to make sure it is eligible so could you please slow down your pace and instead of PRODding 96 articles on one day, PROD 5-10 articles/day over several days? It would help moderate the workflow for admins who review PROD'd articles. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand. I will try to slow down and am sorry for any incovenience caused. Thanks for letting me know about this - I just was trying to clean up these articles. Sorry again. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What checks did you do to see if those articles should be deleted? If you, like @Liz: mentions, prod 96 articles in a single day, you can't spend much time per article, right? You are making 8 edits in 1 minute (e.g. on 16:46, 28 January 2025) you add prod tags to 3 articles within the same minute. And it looks like you prod places that meet WP:NPLACE. WP:MASSPRODding is disruptive. Please stop it. And please give me a good reason why I shouldn't deprod them all (because I am lazy and don't want to). If you want to mass-nominate, please use AfD and make one big nomination so that others can participate in the decision. Polygnotus (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Can you please explain to me as someone who is unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia why its a good idea to get rid of all this stuff? Polygnotus (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Two considerations: (1) I just gave a talk about my concerns including 70,000 unsourced articles, at Wikimedia NYC. For over 15 years, I've thought that the most important thing a regular editor can do is help with WP: AFD and CAT:PROD. A couple of editors 15 to 20 years ago mass-produced a whole bunch of articles about geography and social sciences, without bothering to add any reliable sources. 2) But on the other hand, mass prodding is bad, because it overwhelms the entire system and process of sorting out the bad stuff from the good (triage, if you will). I'm on the record several times complaining about too many nominations. I've been prodding one or two articles a day. I'm very picky about seconding a prod; again, I'm on the record. I'm also deprodding one or two articles a day. I'm still learning about reliable sources, for example, in India. TL;DR: So we have to balance out the backlog of poorly sourced articles with the fact that our volunteers don't have the resources to make good decisions. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Is the solution I proposed, that PharyngealImplosive7 makes one (or more) big AfD nomination(s) that contains a list of articles so that other people can participate in the decision a good idea? I came here because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmid and to me it looks like that meets WP:NPLACE and, while I of course acknowledge the problems with bot created articles, I don't really see a reason to get rid of it. Polygnotus (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back to some of the articles proposed for deletion, and in the name of easing admins' job, deprod a few more before I go to sleep. Bearian (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian and Polygnotus: I am new to this space and don't have much experience with deletion. Admittedly, I should have done better reading and been more careful in general. I PRODed these articles so quickly because I thought they didn't meet WP:NPLACE since they only cited unreliable sources but I can see how before PRODing something, I should do research to find any reliable sources that support the existence of these places. If y'all think it's appropriate I can spend the time to dePROD all these articles (since I created this problem in the first place). This has been a learning opportunity for me and thanks for taking the time to help me improve and not make mistakes. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm volunteering to deprod the ones over 1,000 alleged inhabitants. You do what you need to do. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert but I believe the problem is as follows:

- if you prod an article, usually only those who have it watchlisted notice that it has been prodded.

- if you nominate it for AfD then it appears on a big list and people go through that list and leave !votes and comments.

- I think that nominating for AfD also makes life easier for admins.

This means that, when you want to get rid of many articles, making one big nomination on AfD draws far more attention and community feedback than when you prod them all.

I also think that your reason for prodding (they only cited unreliable sources) is not in line with WP:NPLACE which says that Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.. And if, like in the case of Mahmid, the Statistical Center of Iran says a place exist it is legally recognized. So unless you have evidence that all those houses are abandoned the WP:SNG say to presume notability (although that is just a presumption). Even if they have less than 1000 inhabitants.

Because I am no expert I don't really feel comfortable telling you you must do this or that. But we can ask Bearian who is far more experienced than I am. Or Liz, who does much of the cleanup work around here. Polygnotus (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry to deprod; you can ask for a second opinion if you want. I almost forgot, you mentioned WP:V in the nomination of Mahmid. I believe that the idea is that WP:GNG generally applies to Wikipedia articles, but that in some areas the communities have decided to use a WP:SNG, (like WP:NGEO or WP:BIO) that kind of sort of overrules the GNG (in some cases). I am not sure I always agree with that, but I guess the idea is that some things are inherently fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, despite the fact that we won't be able to find WP:INDEPTH WP:SUSTAINED WP:COVERAGE in reliable sources. Hope that makes sense. Polygnotus (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that makes sense. Thanks for all the help. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to I can probably deprod them much faster than a human can with WP:AutoWikiBrowser. Polygnotus (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't want to dePROD all of them, just the ones with populations over 1000 people but you do what you think is best. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that those with less than 1000 inhabitants are not notable? WP:NPLACE, the relevant SNG, appears to suggest that they are, right?

I put them in a list for convenience. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think that many of them aren't notable per se; instead, I think that I would like a third opinion for these places since they're populations are so low and because they have unreliable sources as their only citation of you understand what I mean. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you want a third opinion, please use WP:3O or the AfD system instead of prodding them, ok? You can ask Bearian (when they wake up) or Liz or anyone else you prefer. If you just want to ask any recently active admin you can use https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins If you want to let the community decide you can copypaste the list I posted and make an entry on AfD. You can use {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} to make the list a lot shorter. Polygnotus (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll seek out a 3O tomorrow (it's quite late for me right now and I should get some sleep). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep well! If you do decide to deprod, and you don't want to do it manually, you can ping me or ask over at WP:AWBTASKS.

For the record, I oppose every prod on the list except Residential Care Centre, Seyyed Abbas and Seyyed Abbas Rural District; see Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. Polygnotus (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I have used WP:JWB to dePROD most of these iranian stubs: the ones that I didn't dePROD had support to be deleted by User:Bearian. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If Bearian supports their deletion, then I do too. Polygnotus (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

Technical news

Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EFFPR

Hi, I believe Special:Diff/1276093338 was made in good faith. See [1]. It seems to me that it just happened that the newest awardee's name was Lol. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However I cannot be sure if it is factual or not. I think the user needs to provide RSes. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah anyways, it would be Consider requesting on the article's talk page; please provide the necessary references., so it doesn't make much difference since the edit wouldn't be implemented either. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. It was definitely a constructive edit, if they used {{Edit request}} then it would've probably been seen by someone else. I've implemented the edit for them, but next time, I believe that requests like those should stay, and the filter may need to be changed, so I've added another request at WP:EFFPR. Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 13:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look for potentially constructive edits - I never would have realized this edit was constructive without your help. As for changing the filter, I don't think there is much we can do. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]