User talk:XyNq

Speedy deletion nomination of Rakhshinda Parveen[edit]

Hello XyNq,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rakhshinda Parveen for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Schröder[edit]

Thankyou for your contributions to the deletion discussion to the article on Otto Schröder. It is nice to see that some people realize that Wikipedia is not well served by having so many permanent subs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Olympic articles seem to be a huge offender when it comes to useless stubs laying everywhere. Apparently contributors at WP:OLYMPICS seem to think an athlete receiving one medal is enough for an article because of WP:NOLYMPICS, but fail to realise the guideline says that it is likely that the person has significant coverage, and doesn't justify an article creation. Terrifyingly, looking at the page, WP:OLYMPICS has over 116 thousand low-importance stub articles, which compose 71% of their total articles in mainspace. ~XyNq^t_c 16:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, if people limited articles on Olympians to those who at least got a medal, we would have way, way fewer articles. There are lots of articles on Olympic medalists that do not really meet inclusion criteria. However, the even bigger problem is until last October the guidelines said that anyone who participated in the Olympics (even those who were disqualified partly through their participation, even those we did not know birth of death dates for or even a full name, even those who competed in 1904 when most of the teams in the Olympics were from specific city clubs in the US), was notable. We are just a little starting to clean up this mess. That there are 116,000 stub articles is interesting. One of the key creators of such articles is complaining elsewhere that so far this year I have nominated 41 of those stub articles he created for deletion. That is not even a small dip. If we chip away at them at this rate, we will still be removing such stub articles in 2122.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Johnpacklambert: If you would like to do so we can create a page in userspace to serve as a list of these Olympic articles that need to go to AfD and we can nominate them in large batches, possibly grouped by event/year etc. ~XyNq^t_c 17:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I worry about larger batches. We periodically get cases where the article only mentions the person being in the Olympics, but they actually were notable for other things, like being a member of the legilsature of Tanzania, or making sinigicant contributions to the WWII war effort. Some times finding those other things takes a lot of research. I would hate to see a batch totally fail because of one notable person, and then see it go back through. This is definately going to be a long term to solve issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: I sort of implied combing through categories already made by WP:OLYMPICS such as Competitors at the 1900 Summer Olympics. It'll definitely take a long time to get through all of it. ~XyNq^t_c 17:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of off-line sources existing[edit]

I have to admit I am very frustrated with the way verrifiability is interpreted at Wikipedia. I have seen way too many people claim articles should be kept becaue offline sources might exist. It is high time that people either tell us what sources mention a person, or admit that it violates verrifiability to keep an article because sources might exist when we can not even say what these sources acutally are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I agree with you, the fact that deletion discussions seem to be pushed towards keep because someone might know of some sort of offline source and might come and add to source more content is really absurd. It's a bit of a deletionist viewpoint, but if an article has been on the wiki for 10+ years and nobody has come forward to add more sources or add more content, the article shouldn't be there. I've seen people defend those ridiculous Olympic stubs but I've been engaged in a discussion that is considering deletion of an article that is at least decently sourced and not an awful one sentence stub. The consistency of beliefs on Wikipedia is not great. ~XyNq^t_c 20:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The really sad thing is there is currently a discussion on an article that has been unsourced since December of 2002. Wikipedia only started in 2001.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Can you link that article? ~XyNq^t_c 21:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is List of people on the postage stamps of Canadian provincesProvinces. I hope I got the name right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I potched it. I will look it up when I am at a computer. Searching on my phone does not always work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting my article.[edit]

..... 103.242.232.94 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon: Thanks for letting me know. I'd like to add that the edit summary specified in my reversion when I reverted that users edits wasn't correct, I must have clicked the wrong thing on UV. His edits consisted of copy-pasting Basingas#Etymology into the article for Basingstoke, which is why I reverted it. ~XyNq^t_c 02:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had possibly read the text that was added, especially the bit about people from Basel settling near Winklebury in the early sixth century, with a reference to the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours. TSventon (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see this as well actually, and it looked quite strange. Looking further into it, the page that's linked externally with that reference doesn't even mention Basingstoke or the Basingas. It seems like most of those edits that were made on Basingstoke are actually in Basingas, including the reference to History of the Franks. ~XyNq^t_c 03:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the editor at ANI because of the combination of odd material and poor referencing. TSventon (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hi XyNq. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 06:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

I would Like to know, how you got that banner that is on your front page? LilLegendGamerz (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Valentino (LilLegendGamerz)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]