User talk:Awesome Aasim/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page (new section). Archive navigation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Press Ctrl+F (Windows) or ⌘ Command+F (Mac) to find a discussion on this page.

Hello Awesome Aasim. I am just letting you know that I deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanye West (2nd nomination), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which didn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the creator voted deleted in the XfD, but it doesn't matter... Anyway, thanks @Ivanvector!

P.S. is your username a pun on the Eigenvector? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I wanted this one to be explicitly noted as an attack page, because that's what it was, and it's not forgivable for being a "joke". G7 would allow recreation of the page, and besides it was probably not eligible because the page creator also has to be the sole contributor but many people commented on the discussion. And also yes, my username is a pun on eigenvectors! You may be the first editor to get that. It's an old inside joke from when I was in engineering school many many years ago and I don't really remember why now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes Aoidh KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes Ferret

Guideline and policy news

• A
  Arbitration enforcement noticeboard
  .

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

I believe your closure of the discussion at

Ok, I'll revert such close. Although I am not sure if it will elicit more discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

. | Sent at 11:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hi. Can U please make the changes I requested @ talk:windows 10 version history?197.26.181.38 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Module:Is subst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Awesome Aasim, try involving users who participated in debates similar to this one.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version history
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windows_10_(original_release)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 10 version 21H1 (Most especially. I don't know Y it has ended as a redirect)

As well as onel5969 (talk · contribs) and hey man im josh (talk · contribs).41.231.228.112 (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I want to make sure I do not violate

WP:CANVASS which is why so far I have tried posting to places where I can get an opinion from an uninvolved editor. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis

❄️ 12:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes Spicy Ale jrb Dbachmann DGG (deceased) Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes Jimbo Wales Oversighter changes Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Hi Awesome Aasim. An IP user 2A02:2378:120C:C22D:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merged release histories to the page windows 10 version history. Unfortunately, another user has protected the page and I cannot revert its edits. Can U revert them for me please?197.238.82.68 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Consider it  Done. Other users should discuss on the talk page how the page should be organized and/or split. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!197.238.82.68 (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Awesome Aasim. I have made a request @ wikipedia:requests for page protection/Decrease. However, I have received a response (make that two now) from a user who, I guess, did not understand my points, not to mention that response was unfavorable. What to do now?197.238.82.68 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to drop these titles' protection at this time. I think seeking consensus for splitting by time period would be the next logical step. You can try asking on the talk page of Talk:Windows 10 version history. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Awesome Aasim, according to a policy, redirects are protected because the target page is protected. Those redirects would have been unprotected if toBeFree hadn't protected the page. Am I right? But my concern is those redirects are indefinitely protected while the target page is temporarily protected which is sort of mind-blowing. My point is, "when the protection expires for the target page, protection is not expiring for the redirects".197.238.82.68 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Which policy? Also, this isn't a counterargument to protection for other reasons anyway. Is there a specific edit you'd like to make and which is now prevented by the protection?

While it wasn't me who protected these redirects, I do sometimes protect redirects indefinitely. I do so independently of the target page's protection status, and my protection summary usually reads like "Feel free to unprotect without asking, if this ever legitimately becomes something else than a redirect". This is because some redirects are less likely to be edited legitimately than actual articles, and protecting these redirects is more reasonable than protecting the target page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

To add on to @ToBeFree we only protect pages that are at moderate to high risk of vandalism or other disruptive editing. Certain redirects, for example, are protected because some editors have attempted disruptive splits without consensus, or have attempted expanding a non-notable topic. Also indefinite does not mean infinite, and if you were to use the {{editprotected}} to get the redirect changed or expanded, satisfying all Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is likely that not only would the redirect be replaced but the page would be unprotected. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I know those redirects were not protected by any of U. Rather, they were protected by nnadigoodluck and sportsFan007. But per Aasim's points, such page creations were made unsuccessfully, resulting them as redirects. Any thoughts on nominating both of those redirects for deletion? Because they are no longer notable nowadays.197.238.82.68 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

May I ask which redirects are you referring to? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

They were first protected by sportsFan007 by moves and then one of them had its protection settings duplicated from a draft by nnadigoodluck. BTW, during that time, the target page was protected by fvasconcellos.197.238.82.68 (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @SportsFan007 and @Nnadigoodluck. @197.238.82.68 editing comments to include mentions will not add the mentions right back in. If you have access to the mw:DiscussionTools logged out, you can use that and you can use the @ symbol to ping a user in visual mode. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You should probably stick to commenting on content, not contributors, especially on things like closing XFD's. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

While I don't see at all how the close statement was a personally attack, 1. It hasn't been 7 days and there clearly are some people who agree, so SNOW doesn't apply 2. The second sentence make it feel like a supervote. Locke, I think you might be a bit overreactive, especially when you have made an egregious attack you still haven't struck. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED it is not a good idea to revert this close unless if it is a blatant — that is, no other editor would disagree — misinterpretation of consensus. If you feel strongly as to objecting to an early close, you are welcome to raise your concerns here, but there needs to be better arguments than "I don't like it". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis

❄️ 21:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, There are enough supporters to remove SNOW as an option, so I disagree with this close since it's too early. New arguments could still come to light. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:DRV exists. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis

❄️ 22:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF out the window there to make personal attacks, and your closure enabled them. Had you stuck with SNOW, while I'd have disagreed as Aaron did, I'd have left it alone. As I said in my initial message: comment on content, not the contributor. —Locke Cole • t • c

00:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe there should be a reminder in BLUDGEON that this doesn't apply to replying with different arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided.

WP:BLUDGEON

Well, making false accusations anyway is considered incivil. Calling someone a disruptive editor or vandal or whatnot detracts from

WP:AGF

and the idea that we are all here to build a project. Similarly, calling someone "incompetent" is also incivil.

One can reasonably remind people of interpretations like

WP:CIVILITY

. I probably should have given more detail into why consensus believes this essay applies. And taking a second look, I can see that bludgeon might be the least of editor's worries.

Anyway, the discussion is open again, and any uninvolved editor may be welcome to take a second look at come to a conclusion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Good day, awesome Aasim. I left an edit request and despite my efforts convincing users that they are best for page reduction without any visual changes, users continued to reject my proposal. Pls help!197.238.159.62 (talk)