User talk:Jontesta

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

I see you've done this now with more than one category. Again, nominate categories for deletion, do not empty them in order that they are deleted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, if you check the articles in those categories, you'll notice that I didn't try to remove the tags from those articles to empty the categories. Rather, someone else filled them after they noticed they were empty. I did change the categories on two or three articles, and if the side effect is emptying the category, it will be up to someone else to decide whether to delete it or refill it with other suitable articles. I intend to continue this work of re-categorizing articles, and unless there's some policy that you think I violated, then I would appreciate you not accusing me of bad faith disruption. Happy editing. Jontesta (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: You are invited to vote on the article Motor City Rockers. I greatly improved it from what it used to be. Catfurball (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey Daranios! I customarily do, and this is a reasonable thing to ask. I'll admit that a lot of google scholar links are behind passwords or paywalls, and it's possible I miss something. But seeing as most of the time I'm within the consensus, I consider my searches to be broad enough. (Many of the scholar links end up being trivial mentions, let alone essays written by students as part of an assignment.)

That said, I appreciate you raising the issue here and in good faith. I have noticed you try to raise it in AFD and it's usually with a tone of

WP:BATTLEGROUND

.

Wikipedia is built on

assuming good faith

, that we have different views on what's a viable article. If I can do that for someone who is often out of step with Wikipedia consensus, you can certainly do that for the consensus that disagrees with you. I think your ask is reasonable, and I hope you see my request that way, too.

Once again, I appreciate the way you're raising it here, and that's always the better way to handle this. Jontesta (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jontesta! Thanks for your reply, and thanks for not taking (too much) offense, good to hear your side of the story. I did reply in the AfDs the way I did for two reasons:

First it seemed to me that you might have not done such a (reasonably thorough) search repeatly, because I did not have a hard time to find sources in several cases when you did not find any. I may have more access to some paywalled sources, which might be part of the reason. In this case I would like to ask you to check out The Wikipedia Library for any promising paywalled hits. I am not sure if this available to every Wikipedia editor, but I hope you have access to it. It does cover quite a number of paywalled journals. Many Google Scholar hits may indeed be trivial mentions or students essays (likewise in any Google search), but a few significant mentions among the others are sufficient after all. Our standards of may also difffer, I try to always keep

the "why" of the notability requirement

in mind, looking if there's enough material overall for a short article.

My second reason why I reacted badly to some of your nominations was the way you phrased them, along the lines "there are no reliable sources on this topic". This sounds very absolute, especially when I did find sources then (and like, in the

WP:BEFORE

search, and briefly explained why you found them insufficient, I would appreciate that. (Including in cases which are paywalled. It's quite a difference to state "there are no secondary sources, period" as compared to "these paywalled sources may or may not have potential, but I will not assume notability until someone with access will analyze them".)

Anyway, so far for my side of things and explanation why I sounded cranky. I stand by what I have said contentwise. I apologize if I have crossed the line to incivility in tone. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your nomination, you confidently state several things that simply, and demonstrably, aren't true. I see you've gotten some input from Daranios, above, about BEFORE. So in this case, you either didn't do one, although your statements clearly imply you did, or you failed to find extant sources. I'm AGF'ing that that was the latter, and so here's a free tip: When searching on a fictional element for scholarly analysis, add the author's name to Google Scholar search. Another free tip? Don't nominate things you don't understand. If you seriously thought that Miraz, or any other major character with speaking lines in a C.S. Lewis work, doesn't have sufficient scholarly analysis to pass the notability bar, that is a

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your efforts to clean up low-quality articles at AfD and elsewhere, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be back here again, but this nomination has avoidable problems:

• This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject. Could you please clarify how The Joplin Globe, Entertainment Weekly, Birmingham Mail, Popular Mechanics, or KSL-TV fit that description? All were present at the time of nomination, and 5 of 19 is a non-negligible number of sources.
• WP:BEFORE only revealed brief coverage that does not support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Please describe what BEFORE criteria you used, so I can help understand why you failed to find such.

As before, I am assuming good faith that neither statement is an intentional falsehood. I would hate to see this sort of wildly inaccurate nomination turn into a pattern of behavior that could be interpreted as a user conduct issue. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. I am uncertain why you believed a PROD of Sally Carrera would be uncontroversial. Looking at Page info there are 50 page watchers, and it was getting 200+ pageviews per day. Regardless of your assessment of the notability and sourcing of the article, I do not see any attempt to merge or redirect the article. Please refrain from using PROD on articles that might be likely to attract opposition; in such cases, proceed directly to the AfD process, ideally with an accurate nomination summary. When in doubt about whether an article should be PRODded, I offer my services to assist you in evaluating such cases in the future. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jclemens, it's time to cease trying to change every content disagreement into a
  WP:BUREAUCRATIC
  order. It's okay that we have a good faith disagreement about what belongs on Wikipedia. For seven days my PROD was uncontested, and it was seconded by another long-standing editor, before it was deleted by a competent administrator. That should be enough for you to see how other editors, in good faith, believe that the PROD would be uncontroversial. There are many times where a consensus of Wikipedians agree with what I'm doing, regardless of your viewpoint at the margin.
• To be fair, sometimes the circumstances are the total reverse, and we have each found ourselves at the margin of community consensus at different moments. Instead of using the community consensus as a cudgel to accuse you of abuse of process, I'm going to continue trusting the community to read everyone's comments about the content and make constructive decisions. I am kindly asking that you do the same, and keep your comments directed at the content instead of me as an editor. If you can't accept my basic request then I'm going to ask you to stay away from my talk page. Thank you. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have watchlisted deletion sorting pages? I find it useful to keep track with stuff, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed all of these but I will keep an eye out. I don't always have time but it's good to be aware of what's is around. Jontesta (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jontesta! Just wanted to stop by with a comment to avoid misunderstandings: I did not forget about my recent dePRODs of the video game articles + Bat phone, and was going to look for sources eventually. It's just that there are so many activities with time constraints in my field of interest, i.e. deletion discussions, that I hardly get around to do any improvments on articles. We'll see if I can join the corresponding deletion discussions then. (I wish they did not happen with such a high frequency, to allow for the high time requirements of the search for proper sources...). Daranios (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daranios, I am going to give these more time. It's always possible that I'm wrong and that significant coverage could be found for these games, and that's always a good thing. To keep the volume of deletion discussions to a manageable level, it's been my practice to cap my AFD activity to a handful per week (usually less AFDs and/or more time). Recently, I've added some PRODs for topics that I would assume to be uncontroversial. But anyone can revert a PROD, and if I disagree with that revert, my choices are to increase my activity at AFD or risk forgetting about the issue entirely. It's better for everyone involved if the volume of deletion processes allows a good faith discussion to happen. I likely won't revisit these games at AFD until the new year, and maybe that will give them time to improve. Jontesta (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]