Archives

October 2008 - February 2010 March 2010 - July 2010 July 2010 - March 2011 End March 2011 - End July 2011 August 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - /barnstars

Hello! I have a proposal regarding WP:AFC (and WP:AFD, actually) process that I would like to discuss with someone. It actually comes from my thinking over several AfDs of "Clear Books" article. The idea is that the special process is created for WP:AFC submissions for articles previously deleted in WP:AFD. This process should look like AfD – the article is passed after reaching the consensus among several editors. What do you think about it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmh, no. Please not. We already have a backlog regular with over ~500 submissions waiting for a review. The AFC should only hold off submissions which are clearly bad and getting deleted (CSD, PROD, AFD, doesn't matter) (and still getting the IPs and non-confirmed users the possibility to create new articles). Normally an article which gets deleted in an AFD should get restored over a WP:DR - in the case of the Clear Books - this is a special case because since the company is/might be not notable, you simply (can) chose writing "an identical" article about the software which might be notable (will check in a few minutes!)

Really the idea to get a (automated) way to discuss articles (on something like a new board) (esp salted ones) which were deleted before because of an XFD (mostly 'CSDed articles can be sorted out because they are mostly deleted because of G11/12) is a great idea. Yes, I think in these cases AFD participants should be informed. mabdul 13:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, the main problem is that current WP:AFC process doesn't give a chance to create a discussion, as the process is template-based. At least the template can be changed so that each AfC editor can express his concerns... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't not true! A user/reviewer is able to move the submission to the WP-space and start a discussion at the WT space. It is also possible to start a discussion at the WT:AFC board or the WP:AFCHD. Another way to discuss is able to do this over {{AFC comment}} (depending on the length). mabdul 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is quirky. It would make much more sense to initially plant the AfCs in WP space, change the template to point to WT counterpart and have the opinions there. Both allows for better communication: in the end, the whole idea was to help the newcomers and to set a bar on non-notable topics – both of these are better addressed via discussion. And then the article gets moved to the mainspace with a talk page already containing the concerns and replies, so that it saves time for further discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not our fault! The article wizard is also (or esp.) for users without accounts (IPs) and nonconfirmed and they are simply only able to create in the talkspace pages and not in the normal space. mabdul 11:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would make more sense to have article submissions in the Wikipedia: namespace. However, from a technical standpoint, that is currently impossible. IP addresses cannot create pages outside of talk namespaces, which is why Articles for Creation was created in the first place. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then it could be done via subpages that would further be moved to Talk: space. Eg. WT:AFC/article and WT:AFC/article/discussion. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! This would be even more confusing. If the reviewer thinks he needs a discussion (doesn't matter with the "helpee" or with other reviewers) then every autoconfirmed can simply move the page and start a discussion at WT; If the article gets accepted, our tool and the "move tab" will move luckily both pages into mainspace. mabdul 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul,

I am about this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cerebro_%28software%29&diff=480889300&oldid=479866206

You comment was - "remove section, we have a comparison list for that!"

Where I can find list for ading comparison a visual review systems? see list Competitors on CineSync page

--Khar khar (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory and if there are lists and comparison articles, then these "competitor lists" should go in there. Cerebro is already listed in the Comparison of project-management software, but I don't know if there is a visual reviewing system comparison. (feel free to start a new list if you can't find any) FYI: I also removed the list in the CineSync article since it violated additional WP:EL/WP:ELNO. mabdul 02:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an article for Netscape Navigator 2. Thought you may be interested.Smallman12q (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ... In response to your requirement for footnotes. I thought that the references at the foot of the article were footnotes. Would you please be so kind as to tell me specifically what you require? Many thanks - daybydaiboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daybydaiboy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, your draft has some major problems:

• Please read WP:REFB how to cite correctly;
• Remove all external links out of the article text per WP:EL / WP:ELNO
• Find references talking about him; not made by him

mabdul 12:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabdul, I haven't been around irc much lately but I'm sure you're cranking away. :)

I just finished a massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful assessment in checking it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Dear Mabdul,

These "Additional reading" links that you removed have everything to do with the SpiderGraph chart article's Creditabilty! After all, the chart is a "decision-making tool" and these references furthers the reader's understanding & knowledge regarding the art of making decisions and they definitly compliment this article!

I would appreciate it, if you give the reader more knowledge than they expected from Wikipedia, by putting them back in! After all, they're not hurting anything!!

Thanx for your consideration and professionalism, Gregory L. Chester 21:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

I restored them and removed the article from my watchlist. I simply don't have the faith to discuss any more! mabdul 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mabdul,

Thanks for reconsidering the Additional reading section and returning it! I'm glad you agreed with me! I think the article works much better now, because of your help!

Sincerely yours, Gregory L. Chester 17:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Hello, I have indented your recent vote at WilliamH's RFB since you had already supported. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uuuups, thanks. I'm leaving normally tabs only open if I have left something unfinished (and so I thought I missed to !vote). Mmh, thanks for letting me know that. mabdul 17:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this amusing. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lynx2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
• I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: bug reported about reposting known problem. Now I need to talk to the bad image remover. XD mabdul 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in WP:HighBeam.Smallman12q (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I know, but I don't think that I need one. For that I'm simply doing not enough mainspace/article content work. The NS2 article is a good start, although we have really many articles which would need a major rewrite/expansion... mabdul 13:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

What is the appropriate procedure when one gets permission from the original author to include copyrighted material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kromholz (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Regards, mabdul 12:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mabdul. You have new messages at WheresTristan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mabdul. You have new messages at WheresTristan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Resolved

hey mabdul thanks for teaching me to sign. well becuase when i want to join (i know how to join)but the thing to put your name to join its not there. for the projects thing.--Friendly ant (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Friendly ant[reply]

Resolved

well thanks anyway what i meant was that the button to add your name to the list its not their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly ant (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Please look in on this discussion, I am not sure I understand their question. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot locate your message to me about adding a reference for the Rani Durgavati page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrish68 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Celestra already pointed: the page is not protected and you simply can add the reference and change the article. I simply asked that I cannot verify the facts o the book and asked if you know if it has an ISBN number. Regards, mabdul 03:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh In the case you didn't found our last conversation, it is now archived at User talk:Mabdul/Archive 6#Rani Durgavati, because this page would getting too long after a short time. Regards, mabdul 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamH (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination. Of course I accept ;) mabdul 03:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to affect my vote as I know you'd make a great admin - I did think you were one, but canvassing in the quit message on IRC? That is quite simply the stupidest thing you could have done as this is suddenly an "anti-IRC RFA". I wish you luck, and hope you haven't punctured your own spacehopper! Worm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you may want to consider a withdrawal before too much more pile on. I would be honoured to co-nominate you in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I'm not fully sure if I want (and if, when) to withdrawn. There is nothing to say more at this time except I did make a big mistake. mabdul 00:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are coping with the whole week much better than I would have. My suggestion of withdrawal appears to have been premature - I hope you keep on coping! Worm^TT · (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to gain consensus over page move in this discussion, but nobody showed up yet. Could you please have a look at it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mabdul. You have new messages at Nathan2055's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Got someone with a COI wanting to pass an article. Could you come give your opinion? Oh, and btw, congrats on the admin nomination! Nathan2055^talk 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your rfa,What do you mean with irc is more legere? Wictionary is not helpful.129.2.65.60 (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mabdul, I'm sorry to inform you that I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. I arrived at this result based on community concerns related to your activities on IRC and during April 1st. People felt that actions you took in those settings evidenced immaturity and were likely to conflict with the expectations the community has for administrators to be capable of complex and sensitive discretionary decisions. However, I should also note that many commentors did view your administrative potential positively and there was overwhelming approval of your contributions to the project as an editor. I would suggest that your review the feedback in the RFA and consider running in some months after reflection on how you can better handle borderline situations that could result in controversy. Thank you again for your edits to the project. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spend a few months just keeping your nose clean, contribute like you've been, and your next RFA will be a home dunk! Sorry that I could support you this time, I really am. The work you've been doing is great, and from my math, most people weren't even upset at the "Canvassing" (which, to my wit, it wasn't). People were opposing because of something like "He should have known that people would be upset about the canvassing". If I don't see a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mabdul 2 by September, we might have some WikiDrama . But please, whatever you do, don't stop contributing like you have been. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know your RfA failed because of a silly quit message, and an April Fools' joke, but don't let it get you down! Try again in the future, because you have the potential. Have this and feel better. Best, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I second this, you didn't deserve any of the nasty remarks that were made. You are an excellent editor and I for one will be glad to support you in any future RfA. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Same here. RfA standards seem highly variable, so don't let this particularly harsh event colour your future plans. Josh Parris 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• RfA standards are living up to their poor reputation. Sorry to see you didn't make it.Smallman12q (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the incident at the RfA. I honestly believe that those guys overreacted to your IRC quit message, and a simple April Fool's joke didn't do any harm. Anyway, here's a kitten, hope you make it next time!

Nathan2055^talk 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]