User talk:Aaron Liu/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Question from Akira Denji on User:Akira Denji (12:12, 4 November 2024)

I want to know if my Wikipedia article has been publicly published or not because after I finished and published I opened Google to search I couldn't find the article on the website search --Akira Denji (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, your user page is not a part of the encyclopedia. Please use WP:AFC instead and make sure your article meets our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Scripting Barnstar
		Your user script Watchlyst is hands down one of the best user scripts ever. Thanks for making it! — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

awww thx! Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Major vandalization by Raoul mishima

I will like to let you know that the above user is making a major edit and threaten me with Wikipedia ban for reverting every edit that he had made.

I am currently banned from making edit in Soka Gakkai.

He had been removing a lot of article or add negative information on majority of the article that is related with Soka Gakkai. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

He is now reverting back the article in Daisaku Ikeda and ignore what is being discussed in the talk page. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As has been said to you, you should discuss it on the talk page. I see no relevant discussion anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 October 2024

Hey, did you consider the possibility that no opposition was expressed to redirecting because so few people supported it that people thought it unlikely to be adopted and therefore unnecessary to oppose? I'm not persuaded that silence regarding tertiary outcomes means no arguments against them; in fact, to my mind, the sort of obvious argument against redirecting is that if you know you are looking for an assassination attempt, a shorter list means fewer options you need to check to find what you want. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

With the amount of support for it having 5 !voters out of the ~20 participants (that's just 1 less than the other opposes) and amount of people who responded after it was proposed, I don't think nobody would bother to oppose it. Nobody objected that the set index article was nearly all assassination attempts. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Five? We counted differently. Well, I'm tired, so I'd sooner trust your count than mine. I fear I don't understand your last sentence, though. Not that it matters, I was mostly curious about your thought process.

By the way, thanks for helping at CR. As you can see, the volume has become somewhat overwhelming for me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks. By my last sentence, I was addressing your original last sentence, and I meant that the set index article was interpreted to cover the exact same topic of "assassination attempts". I also appreciate your insight and thought process. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Your comment, which you reinstated, was in the middle of a signature. Please fix it rather than ask "what???". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

We edit conflicted; I began the “what” edit to fix the signature before you saved your revert and I addressed the edit summary to ConvenientDiscussions, my reply tool, not you. Sorry for the confusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That's OK. I'll admit that I was a bit confused. I see ScottishFinnishRadish has tidied up now. I wonder how many fights have been started by Wikipedia's edit conflict "system". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I've found that weird artifacts like that and comments that get eaten or half-eaten are the best targets for AGF since there are so many wonky things that can happen with thousands of people editing things in concert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Kdkddtkgk (01:53, 4 December 2024)

Whats the page that copied your page? --Kdkddtkgk (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Click on "once" to find out! Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A wild BARNSTAR has appeared!

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your repeated efforts to help try and cool down a rather heated and polarizing RfC discussion on the 2024 United States Elections talk page by trying to actually understand the "other side" being presented and work to help those on "your side" better understand it as well, and trying to keep them from displaying undue hostility within the topic. As I said then, those efforts were noted, and were highly appreciated, even if we did not agree at all on the issues discussed. This is well earned. Thank you and have a good day. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Pandaoss (09:58, 15 November 2024)

I would like to create a page of my own, how should I go about it? --Pandaoss (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Pandaoss! By "page", do you mean a Wikipedia article or your user page? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am talking about a wikipedia article ? everytime I make one in the sandbox, i am not getting the option to move it to publish? Do you have any advice on that? Pandaoss (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any sandboxes you’ve made anywhere. Are you sure you saved your edits? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Close on Talk:Storrs,_Connecticut#Merge_Proposal

I might have jumped in too soon in my drive-by closure here. I notice you did actually have some comments in favour of a merge. Can I suggest it probably needs to happen after the current RFC is settled, not as a side-show? Tying a merge request to that RFC is just going to get it hammered by not-votes to oppose based on the current level of heat on that page. Feel free to tell me to GTH and reverse my close if you prefer!

JeffUK 14:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what should be snow-closed is the RfC, but this could work since I think the merge discussion needs a restart anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've closed both together now. the merge discussion was more of a "This is going to go nowhere good, fast" close. The closure for the whole thing took a little more reading! JeffUK 17:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

why did my mentor change QQQ

Why did the manitor change? :( W;ChangingUsername (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

looks like your previous mentor resigned! Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

UConn

For what it's worth, the University of Connecticut has 90,112 IP addresses assigned to it. I can't confirm or deny whether these two accounts were using IPs in this range, but rest assured the block was an easy call. Cheers. – bradv 01:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from YUNG MNG (07:16, 21 December 2024)

Pls I want to upload a biography --YUNG MNG (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You altered the subscription list by mistake

Back in August.[1] Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for pointing it out! @Polygnotus restored himself, and I've added back @Bsoyka and removed @Tryptofish. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Aaron. No worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~

Hello Aaron Liu: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3}} to send this message.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

TY for the close of WP:RFC/Grey Literature.. RFCBEFORE and the discussion on that RFC was several TOMATs, and I'm especially glad you didn't take the easy way out and close with bad RFC. I hope someone with more experience finds a better RFC for this, but glad i gave my best shot with it. Think "None" was def where that RFC would have headed in hind sight. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A Diddly Issue with Your MFD Close

You closed the confirmation confirmation bias MFD thing saying Ip is free to reopen with actual deletion rationale.. No. A registered editor is free to reopen with actual deletion rationale. IPs cannot create an AFD or MFD because they cannot create new subpages. The IP should have asked the proxy to provide a reason for the nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem in allowing an IP to open an MfD with a reason.
and, uh, "diddly" is a very naughty word to use in 2024, thanks to this guy Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Question from Alybalky1960 (00:59, 31 December 2024)

علي محمود البلكي في الوادي الجديد لافتتاح قطاع مياه استثماري حر جديد و يكرم من الجمعيه العالميه الامارتيه --Alybalky1960 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, please don't use Wikipedia as a medium of self-Promotion. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This is actually funny. This guy is (supposedly) a rather unknown Egyptian minister whose only edit outside of his userpage is him promoting himself in a random wikipedian's talkpage Abo Yemen✉ 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

i'm not random :( (advice) Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

no no I meant he chose a random editor to contact. Also ty for the advice lol, I dont think that he is a vandal or troll tho Abo Yemen✉ 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I was joking with the part outside the parentheses Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

ah right mb lol Abo Yemen✉ 15:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Claudiakrich (20:08, 11 January 2025)

Hello Aaron, I understand you're my Wikipedia mentor. Thank you for this. I am trying to create a short Wikipedia entry about myself because my book publisher, University of Virginia Press, would like me to have an entry about the book and myself. I have tried to figure out how to do this but I have failed. Is it an "article?" If not, what is it? Thanks! Claudia Krich --Claudiakrich (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! I'm frankly quite surprised that UVA would ask you of this, as WP:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. The subject of an article must already have reliable, secondary (i.e. independent), and significant coverage to base a neutral and well-sourced article on. Creating an Wikipedia article is not useful for pre-release promotion.
I tried doing a search on you, and your story is very interesting. However, there's just nearly no sources (that arereliable, secondary (i.e. independent), and significant). Hopefully the reviews on your book would change that. I've no doubt you would get at least a few reviews! (And finally, as you've correctly posited, our encyclopedia is made of articles.) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Pri v15 (20:37, 11 January 2025)

Hello, Hope you are well. Nice to connect with you. I was keen on adding a page on Dr. Kanwal Vilku, who is the first Asian Woman to have spent winters (longest period of 16 months) in Antarctica. Request your kind advice on how to initiate the page please? Many thanks --Pri v15 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for writing article content for Wikipedia! Help:Your first article is my favorite guide on how to get started. Also, take note that articles should only summarize information from all the good sources you can find. Good luck, and ask me if you need any help! Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

hello

Hello, Aaron Liu. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Addis Gh (22:47, 16 January 2025)

Hello, How do I publish my bio using Wikipedia step by step to be identified online --Addis Gh (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ey, creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from StarsinAirI (22:17, 17 January 2025)

Hello, I am back from the winter break and I would love to revisit the question of creating a page for a nonprofit organization with which I am affiliated. Do you need me to resend to you references? What kind of 'disclosure' should I make before I can make the page? Many thanks! --StarsinAirI (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like at Special:GoToComment/c-StarsinAirI-20241210192200-Question_from_StarsinAirI_(19:22,_10_December_2024), you asked @HouseBlaster before, not me. Let's continue from there: What are the three sources you think best present the subject's Wikipedia notability? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Old RfC help

Thanks for your help with WP:EADAILY! Is this one that you could also take a look at? - Amigao (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My time is limited. Could you file a WP:CR? Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Hello! I'm not sure how I should be proceeding with the Heritage Foundation RfC. I feel like I've roped myself into being the designated "devil's advocate", and I'm not sure if I leave that other people will step in to mention the points I'd want to mention. However, the way my participation currently feels (to me) is that I'm WP:BLUDGEONING until the conversation is dead. This RfC has kind of consumed most of my Wikipedia energy for a while, but it also feels like if I just dropped out that would be a weird reverse form of jury nullification.

On one hand, being extraordinarily thorough means the RfC might not need a rerun in 2 years when [insert something prophetic] midterm elections. On the other, it's possible that not needing a rerun won't prevent a rerun from happening — and stuff might change and make a rerun necessary anyways.

Since you seem to have more experience with RfCs, do you have any advice? Is it normal for them to slow down so much and drop to just a couple of contributors as they drag on? Am I doomed to defend, by being pedantic, a right-wing group that I don't like (not for the first time[2][3])? Should I embrace utilitarianism and spend all this time on freerice.com instead? Thanks regardless Placeholderer (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

There are indeed some replies of yours that repeat points already discussed. I am sure that closers will weigh those who engaged with opposing arguments more heavily. It's indeed normal for RfCs to drop off, so sit back and relax until a closer sorts this out.
And wow, freerice is an interesting black hole. I spent yesterday evening gazing into it instead of drafting a reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Aaron Liu. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Dclemens1971
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from RepealtheBakerAct (04:15, 24 January 2025)

I am trying to set up userbox templates in my user page, particularly the Babel one. What have I done wrong? --RepealtheBakerAct (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{ syntax is source wikicode template syntax. In the Wikitext editor, you suppressed the prompt to enter a template and essentially told the VisualEditor to yield text that literally displayed the template's code instead of actually entering the template's code. Either invoke the template through the VisualEditor's template wizard, or edit the page's source code. I'd recommend you take a look at Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup! Aaron Liu (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dominion Sanctuary of Grace Kano City (07:09, 25 January 2025)

How do I create an article? --Dominion Sanctuary of Grace Kano City (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 Potomac River mid-air collision

I was unable to verify that this source which you cited here supports the related article content. I suspect that the content at the cited CNN article has changed since you cited it. Could you please cite a better source? Thanks.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell The live updates things is weird. Scroll down on the page until you get to updates that are at least 10 hours old and Ctrl+F for the title I put in the citation.

I searched for sources that mentioned the Potomac collision, 1000 feet, and avoiding ground collisions at once, and the only ones were CNN and a forum post... Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Weird indeed. The article is fast-developing and I won't try to pursue this further for now I may get back to it and try to inmrove the assertion and/or cited support at some later point. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Question from Hanshaa (20:31, 1 February 2025)

Helo How to I edit --Hanshaa (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Ey! Looks like someone left a bunch of wonderful links on your talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Stale RSPS

If you're confused about this edit, it means that the sources in question are highly unlikely to gain "reliable" status due to their reputation. If you have issues with this, you're free to discuss it at my talk page or over here. ToThAc (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Antoniogarcia930 (04:17, 8 February 2025)

did i create my novel series by august --Antoniogarcia930 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

i dunno Aaron Liu (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from ArthurTheGardener (14:14, 8 February 2025)

Hi Aaron, I've been watching some pages that I think may involve a conflicted editor. I just installed Twinkle, and looking at their edits, some (about half) are marked "vandalism" in red. Is this something Twinkle does automatically? And what exactly does it mean, please? Any help greatly appreciated, as always. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That's just a button to rollback with an edit summary referencing vandalism. I like to use WP:UV instead for its way better UI and revert options (and WP:RW if you need some more advanced features). Aaron Liu (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That's good to know. I think I'll try that one instead. Twinkle looks a bit tricky. Thanks! ArthurTheGardener (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Glenn Dubin

Hi Aaron Liu. I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look at an edit request I recently posted for a page you've edited before, here: Talk:Glenn Dubin#Updates to Early life, Career and Philanthropy. The edits are straightforward, so I hope you don’t mind implementing. Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dwaynehurley (10:05, 13 February 2025)

Hello --Dwaynehurley (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Dwaynehurley (10:05, 13 February 2025) (2)

How can i creat a page for my company ? --Dwaynehurley (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

please work your magic

User:Polygnotus/Scripts/XC.js makes it easy to identify non-extended confirmed users, and being extended confirmed is a requirement for editing PIA articles. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This is awkward, but User:Bugghost/Scripts/UserRoleIndicator does this plus configurably labeling other rights as well, with a method that has less potential of doxxing the WMF's servers. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Not awkward, that is a good thing! Software is iterative, especially gaming. I'll steal some ideas. Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

ooh gaming i luv gaming Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Top 3 please. Polygnotus (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Not too sure, but maybe Return of the Obra Dinn, pre-Miku Fall Guys, and Undertale. There's definitely a lot of better games in my library I haven't gotten around to yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from ArthurTheGardener (11:16, 12 February 2025)

Hi Aaron, is there a Wiki tool I can use that gives the stats on the areas I've edited in, please? I'm sure there is somewhere, but I've looked everywhere and I can't find it. Would you mind pointing it out, when you have a minute, please? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/ArthurTheGardener is what you're looking for. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This is great, Aaron. thank you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from ICPLBal (12:14, 17 February 2025)

Hi Sir,

Good Day...

It was a pleasure to discuss with you, I have to create an article for my working organization about my company and our Managing Director. Could you guide me on that it must be very much appreciable.

Please reply to my concerns, and we will discuss them further.

Thanks Balaji --ICPLBal (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey. In short, please don't do that. I doubt whether this company meets our criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, everything mentioned in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing applies here: No one would gain any advantage from having a Wikipedia article. To document your company, you'll find much more leeway and efficacy in putting the article on your company's website. (@Dwaynehurley: This applies to your question as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Fahin Hasan (10:09, 21 February 2025)

ফাহিন হাসান --Fahin Hasan (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Advice, please?

I appreciate that this isn't an editing question, but I've run into some trouble with a territorial editor who first told me not to edit the pages they'd been working on, and then when I made comments on the article's Talk page, initiated a COI complaint and a sock enquiry against me. I could use some advice! (See my Talk page [4] and [5] [6] for details.) I can understand that the editor might be frustrated that some of their edits were removed, but a) I wasn't the one who removed them and b) the walls of text and the barrage of entirely speculative personal comments about me are beginning to feel like harassment. Am I overreacting? Any thoughts you can offer would be welcome. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's a lot of stuff. Firstly, I don't think you need to worry about the SPI. Interpreting meatpuppetry to forbid you would be quite a stretch. Secondly, this is a grey area for COI-or-not, but I personally I don't think COI should apply. The policy's purpose is to prevent a relationship from unintentionally distorting facts, and I've spent 8 minutes rewriting this specific sentence already so I'll just stop explaining this point here. Finally, this all seems rather unfortunate and I think nobody wanted to do anything wrong. It looks like Coals thought you were accusing him of upsetting a man who has...passed, if I may use that word, and Coals seems to have taken great affrontery at the idea. Though Coals phrased this in a rather obtuse way, this wasn't really helped by you claiming they're here to "plan flags or mark territory". In hindsight, you could have said things along the lines of "I don't know what you mean" and reiterated your absense of a COI, but hey, that's hindsight. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Aaron. I really appreciate your thoughts. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen again, but I'll bear what you said in mind if there's a next time.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, Sorry to bother you on this topic again, but as an impartial editor, would you mind having a look at the situation on Talk:Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, please? I'm trying to help establish a peaceful consensus, but I'm puzzled by the editor's response to my suggestion, and I'm not sure how (if at all) to react to it. Any thoughts would be very welcome. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you "follow" the editor from their contribution history? That is indeed Hounding, though I agree that their response was impolitic as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

No:I arrived there via a linked page, and saw their contributions. They still seem to feel I have a COI, but they agreed to close the discussion some time ago. Is it best for me to ignore them from now on, and leave the OR concerns to someone else? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

1. If so, you could say "sorry, I didn't notice it was you" and that the article happened to be within your editing area or something like that.
2. Yeah, you might want to avoid them. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure if that approach would be welcome, as this article was one of the two interrelated articles I expressed concern about some time ago, but thank you for your advice, as always. I’ll avoid them if I can. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Storrs, Connecticut

An article that you have been involved in editing—Storrs, Connecticut—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Newsjunkiect (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP

I've adjusted your edit in regards to Jacobin. I've changed it back to Green, as your own close found no consensus for additoinal considerations. Also I changed a couple of instances where you wrote WP:NEWSOPINION to WP:RSOPINION as that is the correct shortcut, although perhaps a new shortcut is in order. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the shortcut. I swear I searched a shortcut that resulted in a valid target and previewed...
But as you can see at WP:MREL, a no consensus close is a yellow close; in fact, the table parameter is "s-nc" (source-no consensus). This is longstanding practice, as RSP is just a summarizer for the outcomes of past discussions, and a no-consensus outcome should be summarized as such. You can read the last time this was debated at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I can see from that archived RSP talk discussion that it was one (maybe two) editor's view that if community consensus prevoiusly to a RFC discussion was that a source was GREL, that a subsequent discussion where there is no consensus shouldn't result in a downgrade. Although it doesn't seem as though that argument was accepted by a number of other editors.

Perhaps it would be best if I request that you reconsider your close, as taking some of the arguments from that archived discussion, it isn't clear to me that, in the Jacobin RFC, those !voting against GREL adequately rebutted the arguments of those who !voted GREL. Too me that would suggest consensus for GREL irrespective of any head count. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In this discussion, the participants were split nearly half-and-half between downgrading or not. As I said in the close, the argument to be weighed was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" vs. "GRel is fine and the emphasized standard considerations are enough" . As the idea that GRel should always apply—and is sufficient signaling in this situation—does not seem to have any backing of strong precedent, I don't think the latter argument was anywhere near 2x stronger than the former to claim consensus for GRel—especially as the !tally leaned towards the former—and I'd like to see why you think it is. I think a better path forward would be starting the RfC I suggested on whether all sources like Reason and Jacobin should be labeled GRel or additional care. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

"GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" is not a convincing argument for downgrading and I would have downweighted that argument. It's an unconvincing argument that could be leveled against any source and more importantly it doesn't even tangently reference WP:PAG. I could argue that 'GREL has mislead edtiors into thinking that source x is alwasy reliable' in any discussion and it would be a poor argument. Editors are expected to have some basic understanding of the core WP policy WP:RS and when a usgae of a source (regardless of who RSP records coummunity consensus) is reliable or not.

The argument that standard considerations alwasy apply, WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL, and that a source containing WP:BIAS and a lot of opinion is not a basis for determining GUNREL, is a more convincing argument and one which actually references policies even if only tangently. Arguments from that position should have been weighted higher than the former arguments.

The fact that participants were split should be not a major concern when there is one weaker argument and another stronger which at least references WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think an average Wikipedian would agree with your >2x assessment of the strength ratio between the arguments. GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion". And the downgrade argument was "Jacobin's opinion pieces are far more likely to be misused as reliable straight news", not your characterization that underestimates both this misuse's alleged volume and the unreliability's magnitude (the distance from reliability of opinion pieces is far greater than that of the usual occasional GRel unreliabilities).

If most Wikipedians would indeed weigh these arguments as you did, then the broad RfC I mentioned would not be difficult. Such an RfC would bridge the gap in strong precedent I mentioned earlier. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion".

You are entirely correct here. I don't like the source and have removed it many times. However my concern is that editors are going to use the yellow marking at RSP as reason to start yanking content/sources with little regards to the content. My concern is that would be occuring when the arguments leading to it being yellow at RSP were weak. If the only substative argument the downgrade side had was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" then they didn't have much at all regardless of the split. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I simply don't think an average Wikipedian would find it any weaker than the GRel argument. And there's probably a reason your concern hasn't gained favor in Jacobin's RfCs. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a marker on an information page but it is also a straight description of reliability for which there is a very well established guideline. It is implicit in the description and has been the practice that sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel and that MRel means something more is necessary than standard considerations.

The close is de facto saying (or at the least creating confusion) that it is a valid argument that sources are less reliable if they carry "predominantly opinion" which has no real policy basis and there are many more analogues in this regard. Also I don't think "care because it's predominantly opinion" is a correct description of the comments of most "option 2" !votes, a more substantial section was simply that it was a biased source.

But fundamentally, it is also not correct to characterise it as "downgrade or not", it was a straight question "is this reliable or not" and the responses were to that question, which is natural as that is how any non-RSN RfC is. On RSN, it's the same, the only difference is after the closer closes the RfC on that question, they adjust it into the RSP markers format with the real functional summary of the consensus being the comment in RSP. The fundamental problem here is really this. The close here is extrapolating a consensus to a presumed question of "downgrade and not" and not closing the actual question of reliability. The marker is then updated with the consensus unchanged. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I did assess the notability of Jacobin's non-RSEDITORIAL content. On review of my close statement, I found: 1. I confused RSEDITORIAL with RSOPINION 2. the way I expressed my assessment was one mental hoop away from being explicit (although I did explicitly add it to the RSP summary). I've amended my close to hopefully make that clearer. I do not see any sizable group of !voters who !voted based on bias issues (an argument I already discarded), nor why it's wrong to characterize the RfC as "downgrade or not" when there is a status quo.

However, you did make me notice an error I made while !tallying that duplicated some !voters who expressed multiple options that they liked. With that accounted for (plus the downvoting of !votes based on the single incident I had already downweighted) the sizable lean I saw while closing does not exist anymore. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I take your amendments are primarily stating that in other words, Jacobin’s non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is generally reliable and I find no consensus for the reliability of Jacobin as a whole on WP:RSP. These statements seem to contradict. If a source's non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is WP:GREL then the source as a whole is WP:GREL. WP:RSOPINION and RSEDITORIAL are always considerations regardless of a source being GREL, MREL or GUNREL.

As a comparison, see the entry on The Economist at WP:RSP for example which reads:

Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.

By precedent, stating that a source has a lot of opinion is not a policy based reason for stating that additional considerations apply. Additional considerations should only apply if there are concerns which aren't already addressed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Going back to what I've said a few times above, a headcount is entirely meaningless when there is one obviously superior argument which references policy and guidelines, and which goes substantially unrebutted, and another argument which is along the lines of 'I think people are behaving in this way because it is green'. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not obviously superior that sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel yet are very predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel, especially with the sway this argument found among the RSN participants. A broader RfC would clear up whether it is superior in a much more assured fashion.
Only about 4 mentioned the Economist versus 1 who offered an counterargument against the analogy; that counterargument was not engaged with, and I don't think I should downweight the counterargument that much simply because the arguer did not bludgeon the process. I do agree that it's a shame this line of reasoning did not find much dialogue. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

That counterargument, put against me I believe, wasn't engaged with because it was weak. They argued that The Economist was different because it has sections which clearly have opinion and others which clearly have news. As I quoted from RSP above that position is not community consensus and therefore I should have had no need to counter it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where you see this counterargument. I do not see anyone arguing that Economist has delineated sections. I am referring to whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. As evident in the rest of that comment, a few from the option 2 side also cited precedent in magazines such as Spectator, which is MRel as listed at WP:SPECTATOR. The Economist argument is no stronger than this argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Bottomline your contention is that the argument 'Jacobin having a green rating confuses editors about its reliability' is of near equal weight to the argument that 'we already have policies which cover editorials and opinion, and that is not a reason to judge the reliability of a source'? TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You agreed that there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel", i.e. there is no strong precedent that general reliability in non-RSEDITORIAL content equals general reliability as a whole/as a source. There was consensus for the former but not for the latter. The Option 1 argument is only much stronger for the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether "sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel, yet are predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel" wasn't the question of the RfC for arguments to be for or against it. Though it has been the practice generally (even if not written down), one can think that it's not obvious and a broader RfC would indeed clear it up. But that is besides the point, why is the close itself determining a "no consensus" for it?

One doesn't presume a different extrapolated question to an RfC question. You may think it's the question and some participants may as well take it as that but others won't. The "additionally considerations/option 2" on the RSN RfCs is also very broadly interpreted as different participants interpret it in different ways and not necessarily as a direct analog of the RSP marker (even if derived from it as the wording between the marker and the RfC option is different, if you read the previous close this exact problem was mentioned).

These things aren't something that is quantifiable, which is why the consensus of RfCs are strictly about the straight question (which is visible to everyone) and never for things not explicitly asked by the RfC question (which may be in the minds of some, may not be in the minds of other, another thing in the minds of some others, etc). It is also why the consensus is determined on the basis of what participants say with respect to the straight question and not what !option they pick (a "delete" !vote on AfD with a keep argument will be read as keep). That's the problem with characterising the RfC to be a question of "downgrade or not on RSP", that wasn't the question. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Of note is also that, as TarnishedPath says, the two lines appear to contradict each other and that's because the RSP markers are a straight description of reliability i.e, WP:RS doesn't say sources which are predominantly opinion are less reliable and a normal reading of the MRel RSP marker instead of GRel RSP marker for this kind of source would say it is. This also likely makes the question of the broader RfC for RSP moot (requiring a policy level change for it to be anything else; also why the practice has been the way it is as I mentioned above) though it would be helpful to have it written down at this point and maybe even a RfC for it even if perfunctory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The question of the RfC was whether Jacobin as a whole is GRel, not just whether its non-RSEditorial content is GRel. While discussions usually treat the two as the same thing, half of the participants argued that these have different answers which do not contradict each other. That is answering the straight question. It is extremely common to summarize arguments and contentions that affect the consensus in closes, as I have done here.
I've already mentioned that both sides had enough argumentation of equal persuasiveness, including option 2's citation of Spectator. And the previous RfC close was already highly contentious as I have mentioned below, and one of the contentions was that it ignored what Option 2 usually means.

This also likely makes the question of the broader RfC for RSP moot

I don't follow. Not to mention RSP's legend is still not a policy, and it's not like "additional considerations apply" means a source is less reliable than GRel either.

I do not see any problems in characterizing the RfC as "downgrade or not". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Ps, there are other listings in RSP, for sources that are GREL, that contain wording about the source having BIAS or lots of opinion and which state that editors should reference the appropriate guidelines in such situations. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The only analogue with comparable levels of packaging is Reason. Looking at its last discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reason.com seems like it should have a strong consensus for "Additional considerations apply"; in fact, many participants in that discussion assumed the RfC would be closed as MRel as well. Now I'm wondering why Reason is still green. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the 2021 Jacobin RfC was closed as MRel for quite a while, but it was overturned and then reclosed in mid-2022. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Jacobin, RfC closing review seemed to have near-consensus that the reclose was bad, but did not challenge it at AN. There's also a subsection on how to handle such sources at RSP with no clear outcome (at a glance). You could review that subsection when brainstorming for the broader RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to take the time to read through and close the discussion. The newly updated WP:RS/P mentions that non-editorial content continues to be generally reliable as a source of fact, though biased. Would it then make sense to split Jacobin into two entries, one for editorial content and one for non editorial content? I would be satisfied with that, though the problem with this would be that additional considerations always apply to editorial content, so it may seem unnecessary (though if everyone agreed that additional considerations can still apply to biased grel sources, or that biased sources can be grel, then there should've been a grel consensus). It's true that there was no obvious consensus in that discussion, which defaults to yellow, but it wasn't a 50/50 green vs red !votes, it was a 50/50 green vs yellow !votes, and there wasn't a consensus for yellow either. There's of course no such thing as an in-between yellow-green category, so splitting it into two RS/P entries might be the best solution to clarify that its non opinion content is still generally reliable as a source of factually accurate information. Just a suggestion though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If we label it as editorial vs non-editorial, that might defeat the rationale behind the option 2 !votes a bit. How about splitting it into "Jacobin" vs "Jacobin (non-editorial content)"?

On "no consensus", I feel like that's a design flaw within RSP. There's been a few murmurs to differentiate no consensus from additional considerations by moving the latter to some other color like blue, but IIRC no discussion beyond the equivalent of a workshop was ever done. (And I don't have the time to start one.) For now, no consensus means yellow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from ArthurTheGardener (08:35, 4 March 2025)

Hi Aaron, I'm trying to get away from visual editing and into more source editing. Could you please tell me what code to use to link a highlighted quote directly to its Wiki page? I've seen it done, but I'm struggling to figure it out. Your help is much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean lol. By "highlighted quote" did you mean like a selection under your cursor? If so, you just click on the link button after you've highlighted the text you want to link. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! (I told you I was a slow learner:-) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Robinc2020 (18:55, 4 March 2025)

Hi Aaron,

I am looking to create a wikipedia page for my friend who is a musician and toured with Matchbox Twenty. He is already listed on other wikipedia pages and doesn't have his own link. I am not interested in editing other articles. I just want to help him create his own page. Is this possible? His name is Ryan MacMillan if you want to see him listed under other touring musicians for Matchbox Twenty. I appreciate your insight on best way to create this page. Thank you! --Robinc2020 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey! First off, you have to make sure your friend meets our inclusion criteria. These requirements exist because we have to make sure our articles are neutral and well-sourced. If you think he does, follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Good luck! Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jodhpur The Capital of Marwar (19:09, 4 March 2025)

How did anyone's says that all rajasthanis are marwari?? You don't know which is Marwar region and --Jodhpur The Capital of Marwar (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey! I don't see where the article you're referring to ever says that, and your additions were reverted because they were unsourced. On an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, we can't just trust everything random people say without a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Myles282 (11:17, 6 March 2025)

hello, any ideas how i can set up a wiki page about me --Myles282 (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ey, creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from DorcheatGirl (23:29, 6 March 2025)

i don't want to edit as in change, I thought you meant study. Idon't want to change, I just want to search, right now WWII history. --DorcheatGirl (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your close of the Ukraine supporters RfC

Just wanted to say thanks for your impartial close and summary, I know it wasn't the easiest discussion to read. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Smallmadei (19:53, 9 March 2025)

Hello please how can I write my biography on Wikipedia --Smallmadei (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Ey, creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Malayeditz (18:30, 13 March 2025)

hello, how to improve my grammar? --Malayeditz (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

You could try the free reading & writing course at Khan Academy. You could also try Grammarly, but take all of Grammarly's suggestions with a grain of salt. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from DJDiamondKuts (22:34, 17 March 2025)

I am trying to create/launch a Wikipedia page. I have the notable links/sources but it will not publish. Can you assist --DJDiamondKuts (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey!

1. As mentioned on the draft page, AfC review takes quite a bit of time as we are currently a bit short-staffed on reviewers. (It's better than a few months ago where you had to wait like 4 months.)
2. Creating an article about WP:YOURSELF is an extremely bad idea per the link in this sentence. I really doubt that you meet our criteria for inclusion, which is different from the dictionary/common definition of "notability".

Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

yumm While my bass gently weeps (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

too sour :( Aaron Liu (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Brilewo (20:23, 18 March 2025)

Hi, I edited the "fordite" wiki recently and the edit was deleted by Valfontis. The current fordite wiki contains several false and misleading statements. I contacted the editor who removed my changes and she deleted my comment to her. My intent is to correct this wiki and ensure it is and stays up to date. I have 8 years professional experience working with this material. Is there anything I should know before I continue? Thank you! Brian --Brilewo (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

• Brilewo, your edits were reverted here. User:Valfontis explained the revert and I agree: the material lacks proper sourcing, the second pronoun shouldn't be used--and there were also references to the article itself, along with editorial commentary ("it's important to note"). Valfontis has some rules for what goes on their talk page, which is at the top, with "READ ME" in big red letters, and those weren't followed. I wouldn't delete the comment because of that, but it's their right. And the comment, FWIW, didn't contain any references to proper secondary sourcing. We're not going to look on Facebook to see if what you think is correct. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I can reference laws passed regarding removal of lead from automotive paint to address that part. Only automotive fordite from pre 1978 contains lead per the California law that effectively removed it from the market. CA is such a huge market that manufactures removed lead based paint so that their vehicles would not be prohibited from being sold there. Lead based paint did continue in industrial applications such as painting tractors etc but was completely banned in the 90's. Basically this part about lead as it's written is misleading to the point that it's essentially false. Modern enamel does not contain lead and the info does not mention modern fordite at all. Though people intentionally lie about this often the truth is that less than 1% of fordite currently available is vintage. I value Wikipedia and it galls me when there's false or misleading info on here for a subject that I'm expert in. Especially when there are individuals who've been perpetuating false narratives regarding fordite specifically so they can sell modern fordite at a premium claiming it's "vintage." You'd be hard pressed to find a piece with lead in it today. I only know one artist who has any that's legit. Is there a help article I should read so my edits stick and are not deleted based on procedural grounds? Thank you I really appreciate your time. Brilewo (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  The accuracy of information is very important to Wikipedians, so it's not really just procedure. Since you're new, as long as you cite the sources inline and only summarize what's in the sources, we'll fix it up for you! Check out a guide at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1; check whether you're in Visual Editor by clicking on the pen next to the blue arrow/save button. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  So what do you recommend when a reference is quoted in the wiki and the referenced page is in fact spreading false information? Brilewo (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  Which source is misinformation? Do you have a better source? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'll do some source research so I can back up a sound edit. Much of the problem is that fordite.com is often where people go to find info and the owner of that domain is knowingly being deceptive. The link in the fordite wiki to that site takes you to a page where they say some deceptive things as well as this, which is blatantly false: "Sadly, the techniques that produced this great rough years ago, are no longer in practice. Cars are now painted by way of an electrostatic process that essentially magnetizes the enamels to the car bodies. This leaves little, or no over spray. The old factory methods that created this incredible material are long gone.

  The Fordite “mines” are dry, so get some while you still can!"

  The worst part is they know it's not true because they are literally selling modern fordite in their store! The jewelry gallery on fordite.com is only their pieces and it's nearly all modern fordite. I don't want to get into a fight with them. If they want to lie on their websites then whatever but wikipedia should be correct. Not all manufacturers use electrostatic painting and those that do often still do have over spray. Where used it reduces over spray but does not eliminate it entirely. For instance I've seen pictures of the jeep wrangler over spray on racks from the plat at Parkway in Toledo. It's a water based enamel that builds up in huge sheets when painting the frames due to the open roof and sunroof areas. Many of the claimed "vintage pieces" on fordite.com are this type. Oh, I also once made a bunch of cabochons for a paint manufacturer who happens to provide the paint to the big 3 auto makers so I got the chance to ask him several questions about their paint. The new stuff doesn't require baking any longer for instance. Some paints require baking others don't. There's another common type painted in Chillecothe Ohio referred to as freight liner, semi truck or Kenworth fordite. This type is hand painted due to the size of the parts they paint for manufacturers of big rigs. It's a very common type and came onto the market roughly 9 years ago. It has and continues to be sold by shady individuals as vintage. Sorry to go into all this background detail on this I just don't know how to explain what's wrong with some of the info in this wiki it without doing so. Brilewo (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)