User talk:Reading Beans: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2021/December User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/January User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/February User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/March User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/April User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/May User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/June User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/July User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/August User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/September User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/October User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/November User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2022/December User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/January User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/February User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/March User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/April User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/May User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/June User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/July User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/August User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/September User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/October User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/November User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2023/December User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/January User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/February User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/March User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/April User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/May User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/June User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/July User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/August User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/September User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

I'm well aware that we need more good editors in your part of the world. I think the author of Charles Nwodo Jr. may be one, though I am somewhat concerned about their referencing and another editorial is concerned about their promotional tone. I'm hoping that you will have a look at this article and others they are creating and have created, and consider whether my concerns are justified. If so the might you be willing and able to guide them? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have looked at the creations of Royalrumblebee and I have concerns of undisclosed paid editing. I had previously asked them about how they got an image of one of their creations (Greg Mbajiorgu). In this deletion discussion in Commons, they opined to be a photojournalist who take “pictures of celebrities” as opposed to be a 9-4 worker which they said they are in their userpage. I do not have a lot time on my at the moment but would probably take a more careful look in their contributions later. Best, Reading Beans 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your suspicions for each of their articles. This means that they must not edit in mainspace. I think I shall ask them the formal question if you have not yet done so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Everything about their editing smells of fish UPE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, yes, thank you for the follow-up. I have added their page to my watchlist while we await their response. Best, Reading Beans 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have declared that they are not paid. AGF means I am bound to accept their declaration unless and until proven otherwise. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we should just assume good faith. I would advise them to tune down their promo words. Thank you for chipping in. Best, Reading Beans 08:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RB, yes, I work with NTA, Enugu. zitere m ozi.

Meanwhile, dear RB, can they exchange barnstars with flowers? Take a posy for your hard work. Royalrumblebee (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nwanne nwoke, imana ana’m eche na ibu onye ugwu. Thank you too for you hard work. It ain’t easy. Best, Reading Beans 13:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least, Fiddle, thank you for calling me a "good editor". It can blow the head coming from a veteran like you. Royalrumblebee (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your thoughts. You are my go to editor for Nigerian diaspora. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, thank you for this kind notice. I have looked at the sources and a cursory search for this subject shows that they do not meet the general notability criteria nor the SNG for professors. I think that the creator thinks that all professors are notable. Best, Reading Beans 04:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are the closer of the move request for Denar of North Macedonia, which you didnt' move, although there was clear consensus in favour of North Macedonian denar justified with reliable sources (common name), consistency with other pages, and matches the name of the country. What is the reason for your decision not to move the page to "Denar of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonian denar"? Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Open Free Eye, there is no consensus to move to any other alternative. From my understanding, the user who proposed an alternative countered it with WP:COMMONNAME. There is no clear consensus to hence not moved. Best, Reading Beans 12:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans Thank you for your response. What do you mean there is no consensus? No votes?

Wikipedia tells us what Consensus is:

Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

Thus votes don't matter if not supported by valid arguments. Wikipedia tells something else:

editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

Although North Macedonian denar is the common name, my proposal was "Denar of North Macedonia" because I wanted to suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. I agree that most users except for me and another one oppose the Denar of North Macedonia. However, no user opposed North Macedonian denar by providing evidence. Local hero showed us a misleading unreliable collection of webpages in the sandbox, which has a lot of problems that I explained with my comment, and I had to dig myself into archived discussions to find the whole truth and present that the webpages in favour of "North" are 2 times more than that of plain Macedonia. For all these arguments that I make there are links for webpages. Did you check them before closing the request? I quote here the summary of a 2022-study of reliable sources. Please find the links under Archive 2.

List of Reliable Sources (North Macedonian denar: 135 findings, North Macedonia denar: 57 findings, Macedonian denar: 89 findings)

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources and first of all I want to know if you dispute these numbers?

WP:COMMONNAME tells us what common name means

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

North Macedonian denar is the most common name in reliable sources (70%), precisely identifies the currency of North Macedonia, it is as short as the name of the country, it is the natural adjective in the english language, it is the best distinguishable and recognizable option, and it resembles titles for similar articles.

Are you aware of this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Adjectival form of North Macedonia?

However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".

In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).

Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred.

In my humble opinion, there is clear consensus for North Macedonian denar, and all these policies about common name and naming particularly about North Macedonia show that North Macedonian denar is the only option. The last clause for titles and neutral formulation may make the "Denar of North Macedonia" the best option.

Please let me know what are your arguments in favour of Macedonian denar by citing wikipedia policies as I did myself. Cheers! Open Free Eye (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Open Free Eye, I’m sorry but this seems to be a very long text for me to adequately understand. You can reach out to the tea house or open a move review about the closure. I’d advise you to keep it short and concise. Best, Reading Beans 14:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans Sorry for bothering you, but if you are not willing to read arguments, reliable sources, and wikipedia policies, why did you close the move request? Did you just count votes, which is against policies and in that case the oppose was against "Denar of North Macedonia" but not the common name "North Macedonian denar"? I am sorry but there is something wrong here, I don't think you had to close the move request, you could leave it open for someone who is willing to evaluate wikipedia polices, arguments and reliable sources, if you didn't want to do that yourself. Please reopen the move request, because it's clear you didn't read anything else except the "oppose". Open Free Eye (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Open Free Eye. You really shouldn't be arguing with @Reading Beans, especially since they have suggested that you should visit the tea house or open a move review if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the closure. Engaging in a debate may not lead to a constructive resolution. Instead, using the available channels for discussion can provide you with the opportunity to share your concerns and receive guidance from other experienced editors. It’s always beneficial to approach these situations collaboratively and seek support from the community. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody. Thank you for your help. I am not familiar with this process, and I may have done something wrong, but I think my intention to learn and contribute based on wikipedia policies is obvious. This intention though expects that other users justify their actions based on policies as well. Perhaps this assumption is wrong. I will study the material sent to me and follow your suggestions. Open Free Eye (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Macedonian denar. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Open Free Eye (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. The community will take it from there. Best, Reading Beans 07:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you closed the move discussion for 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting, I'm guessing you found the supports more convincing than the opposition, which I did too. However, I think there is a possibility that you may have jumped the gun, considering the fact that there was still a significant amount of opposition to this proposal. While it is true that discussions on Wikipedia are not votes, I've still seen plenty of examples like this where declaring that a consensus has been reached is subject to significant disagreement. Therefore, I would have recommended relisting it for another week or so, or seeking a second opinion, before closing. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bneu2013, there is no need to relist a discussion for a second time when consensus has been firmly reached. Best, Reading Beans 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure everyone would agree that a consensus was firmly reached in that particular case. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You just don’t agree. You can open a new RM within a reasonable timeframe if you disagree with my closure. Best, Reading Beans 10:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please monitor Special:Contributions/We Watching, with special reference to their user page declaration and their odd declaration on their user talk page that they are not associated with a healthcare corporation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assume that you watch the page. Thank you for the heads up. I’m keeping tab on them. Best, R.B. 14:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am, but I think you may be able to "reach" them better than I. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll surely do. Hopefully, I don’t turn to the enemy. Lol. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Oyebanji Akins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyebanji Akins. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris, what?! You sure? R.B. 04:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer funny. Two minutes into the creation of an article that isn’t fully developed, you just slapped a speedy deletion tag without properly checking the previous version? Seriously, while I’m assuming good faith, I am not happy. FR. R.B. 05:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version of this article was deleted back in March. While I may have tagged it too quickly, it's still about the same subject. Let's wait for an admin to review it and see what they think. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris, The second sentence from G4 says, It excludes pages that are notsubstantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. I don’t think you properly understand how G4 works, a deleted article can be recreated if there are new sources found. All recreated articles does not fall under the scope of G4, so, you don’t just gbam! Land a tag on all of them. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough experience as a new page reviewer to know how each criterion works, you can take a look at how many articles I've tagged under G4 at User:CycloneYoris/CSD log. Though I do admit that I shouldn't have tagged the article so quickly, and because of this, I've decided to remove the tag and let you continue to work on the article in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference the recent threats. Knitsey (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]