User talk:TheTechnician27/Archives/2024/November

Los Juglares

Hello, could you open a deletion query for the article Los Juglares del Dexas which does not have notoriety or substantial sources that support the topic significantly or with extensive coverage. Thank you 190.219.102.114 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello TheTechnician27! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Is there any precedent for mass-deleting species redirects?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Tool

Hi TT; regarding this: "I hugely appreciate your help to make the article more readable; I struggle with concision." I suffer from the same predilection, but thanks to modern tech I can now get my LLM friends to help with this go-to prompt:

"I'd like you to suggest ways to improve the prose of this Wikipedia article draft text by: enhancing readability and improving the flow of the text; clarifying meaning; neutralising emphatic language; avoiding typical LLM words, including "crucial", highlight", "underscore", "showcase", "notable", "significant", "remarkable", "interesting" (and their variations); and reducing redundancy. Give your suggestions in the form of bullet-pointed before/after sentences."

It's remarkable how much fluff can often be trimmed away without sacrificing meaning. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Auckland Museum award

		The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
		Congrats TheTechnician27! You've received an Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for promoting the New Zealand crab species Ovalipes catharus' page to good article status. Well done! --Prosperosity (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This little echinoderm is probably my favorite award I've gotten so far (including the Triple Crown), and I'll find a way to display it proudly. I'm hoping tentatively to work on O. catharus some more until it meets the featured article criteria. Glad I can be a small help in your vast undertaking to document Aotearoan fauna. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

gimme a break

[1]Look, obviously we don't want unsourced information that may be incorrect in an article, but gutting an article without first even trying to challenge any specific points that you may believe incorrect is not how it's done and I shouldn't have to explain that to someone with your level of experience. If there are specific items you think are incorrect or require verification, use {{cn}} to tag them, don't just go deleting half an article because you feel like it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You and I both (I hope) know that's not how WP:V works. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. [...] Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." Not "If you see uncited material, slap a {{cn}} tag on and hope someone gets around to it in the next 10 years." This is the most fundamental, obvious principle that turned Wikipedia from what it was in the 2000s – a cesspool full of whatever crap anybody wanted to say that your high school teacher speaks of in hushed whispers – into a valid and respectable starting point for real, rigorous research. There are exceedingly few common exceptions for this, such as the 'Plot' section of a piece of media.

What you just described is bad practice (something I'm guilty of, but not something I actively insist is good) and rots article quality, simply because of Brandolini's law (here we can say "verify or refute"). If I go and add 10,000 words of uncited information to the article 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, I can't just object to your reversion by deciding that you need to challenge every individual statement I've written and let them simmer there uncontested but for a {{cn}} tag while someone fact-checks each individual one. That's why WP:V is written the way it is: because that model you're proposing has been tried, and it's untenable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This really feels like you are doing this because you want to, not because you actually think the information you removed isn't correct. Which is pretty pointy. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:V isn't about whether the content is correct; it's about whether it's verifiable. I didn't do what I did to make a point about WP:V or make it look bad; I did it because WP:V as written is policy which is both unambiguous in wording and intent and – as stated – very obviously the only way to keep Wikipedia even slightly maintainable (we've done this experiment before; it didn't work). "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and based on your comment on the article's talk page, you intend to see that through. That's commendable; hats off. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This "rules are rules, end of story" attitude is really tiresome. It's not just you, unfortunately there seem to be a number of users with sort of infelxible viewpoint. IAR is also a rule, you didn't need to come in and just wipe out most of an article because a rule said you could, not that you had to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia." As is categorically not the case here; the rule allowed me to maintain it and in no way prevented you from improving it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References added

Hello TheTechnician27, thanks for recently rating the Child cannibalism article. I went through the article and have added references where they were still missing. So maybe give it another look on whether it qualifies for B class now? Gawaon (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Gawa. I'll go ahead and take a look! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've re-reassessed it as 'B', as I think it clearly meets those standards now (as noted, the few uncited passages should be cleaned up, but they don't preclude 'B'; that's more of a GA thing). From just a single read-through of the article, I can say that on the surface, it appears to be at least close to the GA criteria. I definitely wouldn't WP:GAFAIL this, although I can say for certain that if this ever does go to a GA review, that's going to be a lot of effort. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think I'll seek a GA rating for the time being – I'm more interested in actually improving articles than in getting them certified in some way. But I appreciate your re-assessment :) Gawaon (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a really good attitude to have! The main reason I like GA assessments is because they often lead to big improvements in the article as someone interested enough sits down and combs through them for critique (this recently happened to me where an editor pointed out large oversights in the article Ovalipes catharus), although obviously it's nowhere near as exacting as a featured article review. I definitely feel like treating GAs and FAs as an end goal unto themselves like a trophy instead of as a toolkit to refine the article can be missing the point. Have a good one, and best of luck on the article! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)