WELCOME!!!

Please note that it is 6:41 PM (-9 UTC), where I live.

MY INVOLVEMENT HERE WILL BE SPOTTY FOR A FEW WEEKS. WEATHER AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE THE REASON. I DIDNT WANT ANYONE TO WORRY. I WILL TRY TO RESPOND ONCE A DAY IF POSSIBLE. MUCH LOVE AND PEACE TO YOU ALL.

I'd like to apologize for not acknowledging the issues with the other editor's behavior at User talk:Tsistunagiska/Archive 2#AfD. That discussion was the wrong place for a criticism like that, and it was worded in a condescending way. I thought I was above the mistake of treating editors with longer tenure better, but obviously not. I resolve to do better in the future. AfD's rules (often unwritten) and the notability guidelines are indeed vague and difficult to navigate; I'm sure the people who work on them would appreciate feedback on the particularly confusing parts at WT:NOTABILITY, if you had the time. Thanks, and apologies again. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey I've made tons of mistakes in my brief time here. I get very passionate about certain topics and passion is a great thing but also gets me in trouble often. I have to watch that closely. I believe I have made strides to do that here but also keep my edge which is part of who I am. Thus my sarcastic responses to offensive rhetoric thrown my way. I take the time to thoroughly investigate, as much as possible, every potential AfD. My responses to those AfD's changes depending on what I find. On that particular day I had run into those claiming that their project deserved special treatment in regards to the notability guideline. My response was to show them just how discriminatory but equal the basic notability guideline is. It doesn't show preferential treatment. We are the biased ones, not the guideline. We created SNG's specific to projects which create an imbalance in the encyclopedia. Look no further than the SNG on academia WP:PROF. It clearly says it is the sole source for notability of those in academia. If a person does not pass those criteria then we are to use WP:N as a guideline for inclusion. That creates an elite project within the encyclopedia that discriminates against all other projects. Why is an academic scholar with a University bio and a few journal entries treated as notable? Under WP:N those journals would be considered primary works and not even about the professor in question, only by them. They can receive almost no significant coverage about them in any reliable sources but are simply notable because they are a professor, scholar or academic. We created that caste system, not Wikipedia itself. I will definitely look at adding my thoughts on notability and the guidelines in discussion at WT:NOTABILITY. The one thing I have realized is none of us are above anything but most of us can achieve more than we are. I have learned I have to take things in that perspective in order for me to be the most effective I can be. I don't know you well but I believe you to be a quality editor. You have given me no reason to think otherwise. You don't owe me an apology but in the interest of good faith I will accept it. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tsistunagiska, I just wanted briefly to thank you, however briefly, for your really helpful input here. Recent editing by Montanabw has allayed my own concerns there. Many thanks again, both to you and Montanabw. Much appreciated! 86.138.231.127 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Although we have had our disagreements, I appreciate your reasoned inputs at numerous recent AFDs. As you correctly note, SIGCOV in multiple RS is the prime determinant of notability, not whatever we may think of the underlying reason for that SIGCOV. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist I had to go through a process to understand that Wikipedia isn't my enemy that I have to try and defeat by defending subjects I like. As I wrote on my User Page, I don't need my favorite topic or subject to have a Wikipedia page to feel accomplished. I understand and respect the various Wiki:Projects we have here. They have their place but I don't believe I will be doing advocacy for any of them anytime soon. The inconsistencies to me are not gaps in subject coverage but in the rules themselves. Its very difficult for new editors to navigate the rules here and most burn out quickly because of it. Some stick around and most wear down to the point they simply have no will to ensure clear and concise rules are followed in regard to inclusion based on specific and direct criteria. Overtime the consensus becomes closer to IAR than GNG when I don't believe the intention was ever to ignore rules but compromises were made to allow for more inclusion. The issue is that the encyclopedia was never made to follow precise rules to begin with so we never got a starting point by which to measure the success of the policies. We think success is in numbers of views and hits to pages but that's a poor indication of success. That's why we don't allow that as criteria for notability. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really sympathize with you on these comments, Tsistunagiska, and those you made on the WiR talk page. When the weather improves a bit up there, you might find it useful to put together a proposal on how to improve article acceptance or at least a few suggestions on how to progress on specific issues such as notability. It might all seem very frustrating to you and the other new editors you refer to but I am convinced that it will only be on the basis of step-by-step improvements that progress will be made. I very much hope your own initial enthusiasm will not be completely set back by your discovery of ever more incompatible guidelines. But for the time being, just put a few more logs on those open fires and enjoy the Arctic cold. And talking about the far north, you might find it interesting to listen to the BBC's podcasts on The New Arctic].--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott woke up to -37F/-38C this morning. Will most likely see mid -40's the end of this week into next week for high temps and close to -50 for lows. --ARoseWolf 17:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I’m Ebs Akintade (Presenter) and my Wikipedia page got deleted before I could add the links for all the work I’ve done. What can I do now? Ebuaki (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebuaki I would try to get tips from the teahouse on creating articles. I know it can be frustrating. The rules are seemingly all over the place and its hard to keep up with. Similar subjects with less or similar sources may be kept at AFD while yours is deleted and no one can really tell you why except to say "consensus" which is code for "they don't really know why the hell either so they counted the votes". Rules and guidelines and how they are applied are not consistent from AfD to AfD. All I can say is to try very hard to review what are reliable sources here on Wikipedia and stick to those as sources until you can get a better feel for what other online and offline sources may be reliable. It's not all doom and gloom. Just keep plugging away and maybe one day we will be considered "experienced" enough that our voices matter here too. Much love and genuinely wish success for you. :-) --ARoseWolf 17:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E: You should consider putting a suggestion for the article up at AfC. Let others write the article. Writing an article about yourself usually won't fly very far here and is not looked upon with kind eyes on Wikipedia. Several such articles are deleted every day. For one thing, you are too close to the subject, and for another thing, you are probably unclear on important guidelines and policy matters such as NOTABILITY; RELIABLE SOURCING; COI; What Wikipedia is NOT; VANITY; and so many more important guidelines to article creation. Regards (your friendly neighborhood talk-page watcher), GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review Ricky Allman AFD one more time. I have added new information, such as museum exhibitions and Harvard Business Review citation. I feel these may change your mind.Webmaster862 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Webmaster862 I am genuinely sorry I missed this. I wish I could have been here and looked at it. If you feel you have reliable sources you can always recreate the article but it will probably be tested again so make those sources solid like the rebar of a foundation and I wish success for you in your efforts no matter what. --ARoseWolf 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember this conversation we had? Now take a look at this AFD & observe how editors mistake “presumed” for “guaranteed” even though a before search clearly shows the subject to be not notable. THAT NPOL needs a complete overhaul is an understatement. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]