WELCOME!!!

Please note that it is 7:30 PM (-8 UTC), where I live.

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]

Hello, Tsistunagiska. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Connie Redbird Pinkerman-Uri, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bot0612 It has been edited as of today.

Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

happy Valentine's! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen 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) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest 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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I'd like to apologise for my behaviour on Talk:Cherokee calendar. In my zeal to protect indigenous American cultures from Western misinterpretation, I ended up speaking over actual native voices. I also apologise for taking so long to make this apology. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Midnight-Blue766: No apology necessary. I appreciate your zeal for native cultures and it is exactly what is needed to continue to present the voices of our ancestors in a world that is constantly trying to marginalize them by adding in New Age thoughts and philosophies and passing them off as the beliefs of the people. Keep up the good work. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your statement we need a baseline, solid foundation actually realtes to my complaining about attempts to grandfather things into Wikipedia. I wish I had not run with the allusions to the history of the term, especially since I failed to explain them in a way that made them clear to others. Wikipedia started out in a very sorry shape of not including sources in articles, free for all article creation, and some related issues. Things have improved some, but that fact that someone was able to nominate about 70 articles that had been without sources since their creation in 2007 is very disturbing. Some of these articles also illustrate the fact that early on Wikipedia had a lot of stuff that belonged in a dictionary, not in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: My comments will always stand on their own. I don't generally fall into any category. I'm quite unpredictable in life and I like keeping that edge every where I go. One area I do agree with is a strong foundation. No grandfather clauses. Make everything adhere to one concise policy for inclusion and then once that is in place we can have a discussion on where compromises can be made to allow certain subjects to be included. We will still face an uphill climb on determining what is reliable and what is multiple but we would have the foundation to fall back on. --ARoseWolf 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have made some progress. Our coverage of subjects from the works of Tolkien has majorly improved. Some other topics though people seem to want to cling onto guidelines that in no way predict the likelihood of the topic passing GNG. At present the generalized subject that may have had the most deletion nominations, clearly this year at least, is cricket players. Those who involved a lot of refusal to even try to identify how the subject meets GNG. At one point I tried with some articles on Catholic bishops. The thing was people almost always found some sourcing, they just had been too lazy to include it when creating the articles. Then of course there were the two deletion discussions on Ulisses Soares. That was one of the few cases where I have seen someone argue that someone who got a bunch of coverage in multiple sources was not notable. I dug up coverage from at least 3 countries, in 3 languages. I suspect there is more that I did not find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, the main issue we face as an encyclopedia is this idea of a 'consensus of editors'. Consensus is being replaced with a mob. We should never, ever, ever, ever have articles of similar subjects with similar sourcing, perhaps even the same sourcing, where you have one kept and one deleted simply because on one AfD more people voted to 'keep' and on the other more voted to 'delete'. That is not a consensus based on any principled foundational standards. That is simply a mob rule. I'm not saying it will destroy or kill Wikipedia. I may be somewhat naïve but not that naïve. What it will most definitely do is keep Wikipedia from reaching the full potential that it can be. WP:N very clearly states that SIGCOV in reliable sources does NOT, on its own, make a guarantee a subject is notable. Yet we have countless articles that are kept simply because they have a reliable source about a birthday cake, a source about them going to Universial and how they enjoyed the Transformers ride in, maybe a source of how they called some other celebrity and a few politicians by some nasty names, they may have 45 tik-tok videos and call themselves an influencer and, oh yeah, they have a million subscribers on YouTube who enjoy watching them make videos using the cat filter on snapchat and telling everyone how sucky the world is and we need to hate everything but love everyone that thinks like us. Why the hell does that person deserve a Wikipedia article? Only because they scream the loudest and have a great publicist that gets their face and birthday cake in the mainstream? A consensus should never overrule common sense foundational policies. That's what Wikipedia needs. Wikipedia prides itself on the structural integrity of it's precious committee(s) and administrative processes but it seriously is like Nero fiddling in his palace while Rome burns. Rome is still here and Wikipedia will still be here but a lot of potential benefits will be lost along the way simply because certain ones couldn't stomach the work it would take to implement the changes needed to give the encyclopedia the foundation it deserves. --ARoseWolf 13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref 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) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

wild garlic

Thank you for the inspiration of your Life stories! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerda Arendt, you are too kind (lol). I appreciate you. So much to do that it really taxes me but I try to get on here if for no other reason than to encourage, even if we disagree. Between the constant work it is to maintain this place and now adding that we have taken over management of the "resort" around the lake and the floatplane base and it becomes even more difficult. I will always find a way to do something here on wikipedia. My morning routine this time of year consists of waking up around one or two o'clock in the morning. I make a warm cup of tea and enjoy the morning sounds on the deck outside and some meditation. Then I find my way here to check in on my wiki-friends and do a little wiki-work. Usually around sunrise I will take a break and spend some time outside with my yoga and dancing/singing my morning songs. I'll then consult my daily schedule for meals and start prep for that. May take a nap in-between. Usually around nine or ten o'clock I will sit down and type a little more in my journals or some more of my memoirs/book. Of course wikipedia is up and I am writing or responding here. Then around eleven or twelve o'clock I am cooking lunch and dinner for the day. I will log on here after that and do a little more but then the rest of the day is work and spending with my family. I will finish my day's around the homestead with journal entries and reading books or playing games with my daughter (that she dreams up most of the time). --ARoseWolf 12:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith in your recent moving of comments I made at AfD. Please do not alter or move my comments again. They were specifically put under your original note as a response to your comment, not my own !vote. Moving them under my !vote takes the comment out of perspective. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 14:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @Tsistunagiska:, your comments have not in any way been altered.
Your note was simply moved for clarity, and to avoid the appearance of a chat page. Diastinaut (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diastinaut:, I added my note where it was intended to go and with a purpose. Moving them is not your call or place. You do not own that specific AfD nor do you have the authority to alter the flow or order of what was written without the express permission of the participants themselves. I kindly asked that you not alter or move my comments on your talk page in the effort to resolve a dispute outside the AfD so as to keep it about the subject matter and assumed good faith on your part in regards to the action itself. In discussions there will always be back-and-forth so your intention to avoid the appearance of a chat page is irrelevant. --ARoseWolf 15:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Tsistunagiska:
This is already understood. It seems clear that the subject also has support on English WP, and will very likely survive consensus.
From my experience, it appears to be just another vanity article, however I could be wrong this time. Diastinaut (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diastinaut: - Why was this conversation removed from your talk page and added to mine? I am still assuming good faith on your part but the editing and moving of comments to fit your own personal formats is really bothering me. The AfD is meant to be a bullet discussion. No where and under any policy does it dictate the size or formatting outside that criteria. Users are not to edit or format another user's comments unless the bullet discussion criteria is not met. This off-AfD discussion was originated at your talk page to resolve a dispute on the AfD of an article you nominated. It should have stayed at your talk page. --ARoseWolf 16:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Please note that there will be no further WP:AFD discussion on my talk page. The AFD discussion is limited strictly to the discussion page. All notes (including comments) should be in small text for clarity. Only reasons for voting should be full size text, to prevent the distinction between voting and discussion from becoming blurred. Many thanks! Diastinaut (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diastinaut: That is not you call to make. You are not the authority on Wikipedia. You are altering and editing other users comments. If you want to blank your own talk page then that is fine but moving comments and conversations to other users talk pages and altering the format of users comments to fit your own personal views of how a discussion should be is not within your purview. What you are doing is a clear violation of English Wikipedia policy and accepted practices. --ARoseWolf 17:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Please read through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I do not make the rules. I do however keep my talk page blank, so (for your benefit) I moved your comments here. If you wish to delete them, that is up to you of course. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free to do so on the discussion page. In my opinion, everyone in the discussion thusfar has already made their case for or against deletion. So now we have only 6 more days to wait. It already appears that the article will remain, so I would not worry too much. Diastinaut (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diastinaut: Please do not treat me like an petulant child. I have consulted the "rules", as you call them, many times and no where in them does it state what you are doing is correct. In fact, it suggests not reducing font sizes within the same article and only reserving it for special circumstances. While I appreciate you thinking about me, I respectfully ask that you not alter my comments or move them in any way going forward. If you do so then you will be warned for disruptive behavior and if it continues I will seek admin assistance, for your benefit of course. --ARoseWolf 17:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention. We can all work together to keep the discussion from getting messy. In any case, I am signing out for the day. I will check back after a week to see the result, but it really doesn't matter for me one way or another, it's nothing personal. Have a nice evening! Diastinaut (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ARoseWolf. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 17:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Doug Weller talk 17:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]