This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I kindly ask that you tone down your comments about me at AfD and focus on discussing the notability of the articles themselves instead of repeatedly bringing up the way I went about nominating them. I also ask that you strike the accusation "You took it upon yourself to prod and nom 10 individual articles, and even worse, you were planning to add, what – 8 more if an administrator had not stepped in?" which you made here, as it is a failure of WP:AGF as well as factually incorrect. As I explained to you on my talk page, I prodded/nominated a single batch of articles. That was it. An editor (who as I later found out to be an admin, although they were not acting in that capacity as they were WP:INVOLVED) commented several hours later asking me to stop, but that was a moot point as I had already gone through the batch. There were not 8 more articles in my queue. I'm asking you here so that you can retract it quietly instead of being dragged into an embarrassing community discussion about your personal attacks.
There's no requirement or norm to discuss with the article creator before nominating an article for deletion, so please stop bringing that up since it's not misconduct. When an article is nominated for deletion, it's because the topic is believed to be non-notable with no potential for improvement, so there would be no point in asking the creator to improve it. However, in the future I'll take care when nominating features that may be part of a larger body of work and consider discussing alternate ways to present the information. –dlthewave☎15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
What you just did by coming to my UTP in an attempt to bully me into silence via an unwarranted accusation of inciviilty, while further incriminating yourself relative to not following customary procedures, will only serve to further substantiate the need for the RfC Valereeehas proposed will be helping to moderate for ArbCom about mass deletions, and I thank you for making that contribution – perhaps some good will come out of this nightmare of a time sink. I'm never uncivil – it is not my nature, see Atsme's law. I did AGF as evidenced in my discussion at your UTPwherein you stated, "To give you an idea of my process, I typically nominate a batch of similar articles for PROD or AfD (in this case it was 18) and then wait to see what the outcome is before starting a new batch." Dlthewave, you said it was 18, so my comment was factually correct.19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC) I will state facts as I have done at those AfDs, but as you stated above, you are the one who was asked by an admin to stop the prodding and nomming, when you still had 8 more to go in addition to the 10 you inundated us with at AfD. It felt more like an ambush against a longtime article creator who has numerous FAs under his belt. I did not see any co-noms in the mass AfD attempt; therefore, you did take it upon yourself to nominate all 10+/- of them individually, and not as a group per AFD recommendations. You should have taken the hint when the prods were removed, but instead you took them to AfD knowing full well that they are nationally protected geographic features, specifically named glacial lakes in the Grand Tetons = passes GNG per SNG GEOLAND.
WP has procedures that we are required to follow. Many of our admins, who have the ability to speedy delete non-notable articles will tag them instead of deleting them. And that is what I teach my students attending the tutorials at NPPSCHOOL. Just ask any admin about tagging in lieu of deleting. In fact, I just saw such a tag by Rosguill.
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.
Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted - it appears to me that you alone made the determination that they could not be improved. If I am mistaken, then provide the diffs to the discussions you were involved in before prodding and nomming all of those articles.
If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
"If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." (NA - because those articles weren't new, they were 10+/- yrs in main space, which alone should have instigated discussion)
If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. – I don't recall you following that procedure so please provide the diffs.
If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.
I highly recommend that you follow WP:BEFORE more closely than what you did in your mass deletion attempt of notable geographical features. Atsme💬📧18:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Just for the record, I didn't propose this RfC to ArbCom. I just volunteered to moderate the discussion they'd already ordered. Valereee (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, could you please name the 10 articles which I sent to AfD as well as the "8 more to go"? I was going to let that one go, but you're continuing to make that claim here as well as at AfD and even to your NPP student. I'm asking because I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I don't believe I nominated a full 10 articles and I certainly wasn't planning to do 8 more at that time. –dlthewave☎19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have that kind of time to go back and count your prods & noms - you were stopped, and that's what matters. You are the one who said 18. I count 10 Prods, and were stopped by the time you reached 7 AfDs.
As I mentioned earlier, you might want to step back and review your own behavior. I'm not going to retract anything because what I have said was factual relative to what you said. You are the one who needs to apologize for providing misinformation, and for inundating us at AfD with articles that are notable, or that could have been discussed on the article TP. I started out trying to help you, but all I am getting in return is DIDNTHEARTHAT, so I'm done. I don't have time for this. Atsme💬📧19:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
BusterD, I won't stop because you requested it, but I will voluntarily halt, and will even go a step further by revising all misconstrued lexical semantics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I count 7 articles at AfD of the 10 that were prodded. When I was first told there were 18, it was a mistake because there are only 13 total, which leaves 3 of the prodded that were not nommed + 3 more on the back burner that were neither prodded nor nommed = 6 total articles that were spared AfD after you politely requested "they refrain from further prods or afds until we sidebar this whole question of NOHARM and GEOLAND." You also made it perfectly clear when you said they were "under no restriction but with respect, I request they halt the prodding and nomming for now." I thought it was a perfectly reasonable request that any editor could have made under the circumstances. Dlthewave questioned your request, and when you responded, no further comments were made. Now I can safely assume that the activity ceased as a voluntarily choice by Dlthewave to neither prod nor nom the remaining 6 articles that were referenced, which is perfectly fine with me and much appreciated. Hopefully my newly revised lexical semantics are acceptable.💃 Atsme💬📧13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Can I has a T-shirt made of that last sentence? This is why wikipedians can't have nice things, because we're required to scrum over acceptability of "newly revised lexical semantics". BusterD (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what do you think this diff indicates, and what do you think this discussion was about? I'm of the mind that it was about stopping you. Everything you've objected to regarding what I've said has proven to be misstatements or misrepresentations by you as to what actually took place. And FYI, I am finding multiple news articles about those lakes, and I have contacted the Stan Klassen Research Center - Jackson Hole Historical Society & Museum (jacksonholehistory.org) to obtain more historic information about those notable glacial lakes. These are the steps we follow as per WP:BEFORE, and WP:NEXIST – we don't just run to AfD with a batch of notable articles that have been in main space for years. Common sense tells us mass deletion is likely to cause a stir, especially when it's the work of a longterm editor. We all learn from our mistakes and avoid wasting time by making excuses for them. There is nothing more to discuss here. Atsme💬📧20:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think for a moment that Dlthewave is plotting to destroy MONGO's creations, but I do find the nominations frustrating. Please do them a couple at a time. You may also want to raise awareness at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features), because your interpretation of it is different than my understanding of that SNG's consensus. For example: do hiking guides count toward notability in the sense of GEOLAND, or are they too specialist? Ovinus (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Oops, looks like we had an edit conflict there. I believe I miscounted, it was only 13 and not 18 lake articles that I prodded, 8 of which went to AfD. But regardless of the numbers, the point still stands: I sent a certain number to AfD and chose to stop at that time. It was not because an admins sked me to. You need to take this statement at face value, assume good faith and retract the "8 more left" (or 5, or whatever) claim as it is simply untrue. –dlthewave☎19:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit disappointed this discussion has acquired any heat, and I must take responsibility for my part in this. I asked Dlthewave in good faith to hold up in their process and they did as I asked. I appreciate how they've dealt with my (perhaps none-too-gentle) request. I had no intention to save MONGO's creations; he's a big boy and can defend his own pagespace. In no way did I intend to act like an authority or a sysop. I was merely trying to head off unnecessary conflict and prevent more prods or AfDs in which I would feel compelled to !vote against Dlthewave's intention. I have let those extant processes work largely without any assertions to this point, in order to demonstrate my good faith in Dlthewave's noms. On the merits, this is a healthy set of discussions to have (examination of GEOLAND, multi-page prodding, threshold of bare sourcing of a gazetteer). I was hoping to have a discussion on the merits without any undue personalization, but any AfD's adversarial nature tends to raise hackles. BusterD (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
AfD
In your latest reply to me you said: "As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your comments have no relevance to the notability of this article." You are right that you have repeatedly asserted that. May I suggest that looks a bit like WP:BLUDGEON - particularly when you did not answer how a subject can meet WP:GEOLAND when the text of that says:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
(my emphasis).
Throughout, what I have been hoping to see is some evidence of significant coverage of the subject somewhere, and instead of engaging in the discussion you keep just saying it clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. But it doesn't, does it? Because you cannot make an encyclopaedic article about every single one of the 400 lakes in Grand Teton and Yellowstone. Other than saying that they exist at a certain place, there is nothing. So per WP:GEOLAND we should be looking at "information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography."
It is clear you want these stubs to hang around. I don't know why, and you will probably have your way, because often the loudest voices win, and who can fault that? It doesn't make the encylopaedia better though, and I think you know that. Yet in the big plan, it is a small issue, and I see no benefit from replying to you further there. AfD is meant to be a discussion, but that discussion feels like a battleground to me.
The vast majority of pages on Wikipedia are mass produced stubs like these. People can create hundreds of these a day. Some people have created tens of thousands of them. AfD is an exhausting process, requires hours of editor time, whereas page creation is trivial. Every one of these could be deleted and in a week someone could create them again. Tbh the line of least resistance would have been to let them all go and then just make them again as and when someone actually has something to say about them! But that is up to you, and I won't object too strongly. In the big plan of things these are just a tiny symptom of a much larger issue. I would not have touched those because cleaning up that mess of a zillion stubs is a Sisyphean task. Until there is deletion at scale, Wikipedia will remain broken on that point.
But my reason for reaching out to you is to ask you to consider your approach here. You made a discussion about notability feel like something much more like a battleground. When you tell me my comments "have no relevance", that comes across - and I am sure this was unintentional on your part - as bludgeoning. Instead of discussing with me, you literally say that my view has no relevance. I am sure that is not what you meant to say, but it is what I heard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
No, Sirfurboy, you may not suggest BLUDGEON, unless you are referring to yourself. I've been around long enough to know when an editor runs out of valid arguments, some will start casting aspersions and attempt to discredit their opposition, not unlike what is happening to me now. Correcting misstatements is not bludgeoning. I have explained why your position is irrelevant to the purpose of AfD which is to delete articles, and all I've been getting back in return is DIDNTHEARTHAT. Please don't bring those same ludicrous arguments to my UTP – it is more than I can bear when reading them at AfD. This is my happy place, and I prefer to keep it that way.
My recommendation is for you to study my comments and those of other editors at AfD who support keeping those articles, and hopefully you will learn from them instead of taking what I've said out of context, and casting aspersions in an effort to make your position look better for your minority of 2. The nom refers to SIGCOV as the reason to delete but that applies to GNG, not SNG which clearly states (my emphasis): Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I've also read your comments on the UTP of Lightburst wherein you attempted to change her position. You also freely shared why you dislike stubs. That pretty much convinces me who among us needs to change their approach. WP:V, WP:GEOLAND, WP:EXIST and WP:CONTN, all apply to those lake articles. MONGO has already expanded some of the information in those articles, and other editors have also contributed, all of which provides increased assurances that those articles are not just stats and coords for those who cannot decipher the difference between stats & actual information. Unwarranted mass deletions have no place in WP. What WP needs more is collaboration, editors helping to find sources, and working together to expand stubs – and that is what helps build an encyclopedia. Atsme💬📧02:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
"This is my happy place, and I prefer to keep it that way" - I apologise for intruding on your happy space. Have a good day. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thank you so much for coming over - I am sorry I didn't get to you sooner, telling you how brave you are, consoling others after you lost your sister! -
For better coordination of some aspects of NPP discussion, we have opened up a page that for some reason had been redirected since 2018. It is hoped that this will relieve the general NPP talk page and user talk pages of discussion on some aspects, principally those concerning the tasks of the coordinators. I've always been wary of the Board of Trustees, cautious with my enthusiasm for the WMF in general; and while it might possibly do a reasonably good job, I was very concerned about what I belive to be the little known true reason for the creation of the Wiki Education Foundation and its paid employees.
One Wikipedian I like immensely and trust implicitly is Bluerasberry. I have known him for a long time since we met for the first time in Brooklyn many years ago. Lane is one of the most enthusiastic and dynamic Wikipedians I have ever met, however he is extremely busy. He is nevertheless acutely aware of the incongruous money spending practices of the WMF and is a strong advocate of spending more money on direct support of the volunteer communities. NPP has urgent, very urgent software requirements among all its other issues that need to be addressed. I had been hoping to meet my friends and contacts at the next Wikimania which was scheduled to be on my doorstep in Bangkok in 2020. I fear however, that with now 4 (when including next year) real Wikimanias in a row having been cancelled, the huge saving of money on not holding the event, will motivate the WMF to abandon Wikimania permanently and use those funds for more non essential things.
These are some of the reasons is why I hold little credence in the claims at Phab that there are insufficient resources to address even the most simple but urgent Curation software bugs for which we have been waiting nearly 4 years to be repaired. In short, while I still can, I'm doing as much as possible for the new coords to move things forward with the part of the WMF with whom I still have good relations. Therefore to avoid any duplication of effort, please do look in at the new talk page for NPP functionality issues, and leave a comment on anything you wish to add to. For my part, I will be launching a poll among the 740 reviewers for feedback on their UX with the curation software, and working with the WMF devs of the IP Masking project and the new user Home Page project, in an endeavour to get a better new registration splash page made. These things are all part and parcel of the solutions to reduce the torrent of unsuitable pages in the feed, and to aim for a clean encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Kudz thank you for all you do! I already submitted my question to WMF, asking them what WMF is doing/planning to do to protect NPP/AfC from system overload and AI/BOT generated articles spamming the system? I plan to be on the Zoom call. If you can think of anything else, let me know. Atsme💬📧00:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the WMF is doing/planning nothing. MB has stepped in as de facto coord of some aspects of NPP and Novem Linguae is knowledgeable about the way Phab works. I suggest you talk to them about the outstanding bugs and minor but important feature requests, and how your Zoom meeting can help to move things forward. I am adamant that with NPP being the only gatekeeper against unwanted new pages, the attention to the Curation software is above and beyond the scope of the Wishlist and requires a dedicated team being delegated to it. Like I keep saying: the WMF is awash with money and excuses that they lack resources are implausible. The WMF paid themselves to develop the code for Curation, and IMO they should assign the funds to maintain it. Another kind of non NPP solution would be to raise the bar at WP:ACPERM to WP:XCON, but that would be a local policy and not one for discussion with the WMF.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I wish I could remember where I saw it but I've seen other complaints echoing Kudpung's point about the WMF's failure to allocate resources for the maintenance of tools they develop. At a basic level it's bad practice as the possibility of needing to maintain the code ensures the code written is maintainable. There are other folks also pushing on this point. Cabayi (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Cabayi. It's comforting to know others are pushing. I'm of the mind that our efforts would be more impactful with a unified approach on the 14th. And Kudz, I agree with you regarding both MB and Novem. I hope they submitted questions and registered for the meeting. Hopefully your ping will bring them here for input; the meeting is only 2 sleeps away. Atsme💬📧10:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'd encourage us to nudge the foundation toward hiring a contractor software developer to work part-time and focus solely on the PageCuration backlog on Phabricator, which has around 150 open issues. It is in need of someone with technical knowledge who can take ownership of it and start writing patches. The growth team is kinda-sorta "in charge of" PageCuration. So it may help to mention them specifically. If you are somehow able to convince people to hire a developer, that is probably the team that the developer should be placed on.
I have my doubts about allocating more resources towards creating AI hoax detection tools, as I am not convinced that is a big problem, and I am not convinced an AI could detect these better than a human. But I know you're pretty convinced of this so don't let me stop you, I don't want to step on your toes. For implementation, you'd probably want to do it through ORES, similar to the "vandalism", "spam", "copyright", etc. labels that are applied to articles in Special:NewPagesFeed. To set up an AI, you'd need to feed it test cases of "hoax" and "not hoax", and then it will try to find patterns. However I suspect this will be very difficult for hoaxes. It's not as simple as looking for "poop" like you would for vandalism ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood my concern - it is not entirely about AI hoaxes, it's about AI submissions in general and the potential to overwhelm our human resources. There may be hoaxes involved, but like you, I anticipate minimal vandalism in comparison to what we have already experienced first hand in overwhelming numbers of Bot produced stubs/short articles coming from Southeast Asia. Those articles may be unsourced, or poorly sourced, not to mention the various translated articles in non-English speaking countries that will be coming our way. What we're seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. For example, the newest amazing project Botipedia, which has managed to create an unfathomable number of articles in multiple languages via algorithm is real, it's incredible and it's happening now. I'm of the mind that it's important enough for us all to pay attention. I am also of the mind that if such technology is in the hands of the do-gooders in the world, it is also available for nefarious reasons. Atsme💬📧12:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
*Proposal Wiki community has more partnerships with universities for certain technical projects.
Pros
Scales with user demand
More opportunity for interaction between community and student researches
We create a marketplace where users and technicians can meet each other
Cons
Universities need stable commitments that need to come from organizations, not individuals
Researchers typically do one thing only; untrained community members try to make simple requests but actually ask for 5+ unrelated things
This requires social infrastructure which we do not have, and are not currently building
I am Wikimedian in Residence at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia. I can take on machine learning projects right now, free of cost, and every year. Here is a video of me talking about how research partnerships work for my school, but it would be the same in most places.
@Kudpung: Yes, the Wikimedia Movement has money. The single biggest challenge in the Wikimedia Movement is moving resources out of the Wikimedia Foundation and into more globally diverse, cost effective, targeted programs. We in the Wikimedia community have consensus that we want diverse and equitable sharing of resources, but as reported in The Signpost and elsewhere, money is not actually being shared. For my school I do not need money, but to get other schools around the world on board, they need money to start up and we need money in general to make it easier for universities to collaborate with research.
@Cabayi: Look at that Signpost article. The issue is not just failure to maintain tools but lack of transparency about money in general. Donors give money to Wikipedia because they trust the community. The public wants the Wikimedia community to speak for projects and allocate the money as it likes.
Atsme - the "bot" issue is not just one issue, it is 100 challenges and opportunities. Spam is one short term problem. In the future I think the bigger problem will be major corporations trying to use bots legitimately but in a way that conflicts with community. I know this seems like a technology issue but I think the social issues will be bigger. For now I wish the wiki community could collaborate on tech projects, because if the community wrote its own rules for how to use tech for its own projects, then I think that would be the best protection against both spam and corporations. Like for example, we take for granted that ORES is good, but it still has shortcomings, and there has been no funding to community to organize town hall talks or bring people to conferences to discuss it or similar technological changes.
@Novem Linguae: As you say, bots cannot do things as good as humans, but I think you are under-appreciating the situation. In that "Automatic Detection of Online Abuse" project the student researchers did nothing that wiki community members could not do. We only repeated assessments that are old and already done. However, 3 students knowing nothing about Wikipedia were able to download all of Wikipedia and re-check every block ever issued, and they did this with a few weeks of work. When the robot reported blocks inappropriately issued or found users that needed a block but did not have one, I think the bot was right. This is magic at scale which is cheap and can be tested on everything we do. Also, the tech from 4 years ago is obsolete and now costs are 1/10. We need a response.
I would like more research partnerships with my school but I really am supposed to negotiate with paid staff, not volunteers.
My own school does 100 of these projects a year among several hundred students. There are at least 20 schools right now doing public projects like my school. I wish many of these could connect with wiki community projects. Wikipedia could be an attractive research partner because the data is already public, people want to support Wikipedia, and the data is extremely well organized and interesting for many reasons.
Doing analysis does not solve the original problems of code development, tool development, design, documentation, training, and user experience. We have a lot of problems here. The one that I wish I could address better was getting more analysis challenges to my students.
I suppose what I want is meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates that can promise committed research partnerships with universities. WMF staff probably do not want these partnerships routinely because that would put them in conflict with wiki community often; however wiki community can do projects without that conflict because we decide when the time is right to explore various issues. I wish more money could go to wiki community organizations so that they could accept these partnerships, because although accepting research is fairly easy, I think it is too much commitment for a volunteer. Also universities are unlikely to believe that a volunteer can be reliable for a six month project. Bluerasberry (talk)13:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, thank you for your input, and especially for the link to meta:Research:Automatic Detection of Online Abuse. The example @16:00 and the flagging of users involved in misconduct was quite interesting, indeed. It wouldn't surprise me if it received emotionally charged feedback. Also wanted to mention that I have not forgotten the academic angle you and I discussed earlier re: working with article improvement teams from universities that focus specifically on improving draftified articles rather than 100% article creation. But first I want to see how the WMF is going to respond to my questions, then I can proceed with putting a Project Team together and submit a funding proposal to WMF which potentially will include tech staff dedicated to maintenance, and the development & improvement of much needed tools, among a few other areas that will need dedicated staff. Atsme💬📧14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: Right - get whatever funding and support you can from WMF. The narrow way that I can support from my school is that if somehow you want student researchers to check something a million times, then I can offer that. There are a lot of questions around new articles where this could apply. If you can get your own resources and support from WMF, then I can support your project with some analysis. Bluerasberry (talk)14:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Atsme. I know you've been active in New Pages Patrol and may be interested in who is working on this task. There is a "page curation log" which logs when pages which have been marked as reviewed:
Apologies for my tardy response - THANK YOU. Please continue your curated/triage activities, and make it 300 instead of 3. Danny's bot is knocking out the redirects - good job!! Automation is the way to go! Atsme💬📧16:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Limited TWL resources
Hi, Atsme, and thanks for your response at the meta TWL thread. You mentioned the difficulties you were having in your wee isle due to limited resources at TWL, and wanted to see if this idea would help. I live in an area with a very good library system, and some of TWL resources I have are more of a convenience (although they were more than that during the pandemic, when it was closed, but it's open again). So, if there were a way we could guarantee that you would be the one to snag a resource that I give up and not somebody else, basically swapping my access out for yours, I'd be willing to give some of them up. Maybe User:Nikkimaria or somebody could advise whether that's even possible. If I have access to certain resources that are more of a convenience to me but a necessity to you, that doesn't seem quite fair, so I'm open to considering a possible swap. You can send me some salt air or black sand or whatever the local specialty is in return (delivery via Commons). Lmk if interested. Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You're able to give up access but there isn't really a mechanism at the moment to guarantee who gets that open slot. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That is very generous of you Mathglot. THANK YOU! The main staples in my WP diet are Nature (Springer), Science/AAAS and JSTOR, all of which I was unable to renew. I have access to Newspapers.com until June next year - it renewed without a hitch. Used it a lot today verifying a hoax. Whatever you can spare will be most welcome and very much appreciated. Nikki - could we use a common email addy & login to the sources we're sharing? Mathglot, instead of salt air or black sand, would you settle for some cadushy cactus in a bottle?Atsme💬📧00:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I could definitely give you JSTOR, because I have access to that through the e-library locally; as for Nature and Science, I might have access to those, too, but if not, I'm willing to give them up, if we can find a technical solution for doing the swap. There is something in databases called a "transaction" which basically guarantees that both (or all) database operations get done ("committed"), or none of them do (like debiting checking account A while crediting B; it wouldn't do to only complete one of those!). I'm pretty sure that someone with access to the TWL database could code a few SQL statements including one (or a series, depending on the table structure) that drops my access to a few items, and a second statement (or series) that would add your access, and surround the whole thing in a transaction envelope, so either they both happen, or neither does. However, it sounds like this would be a one-off, and not something done casually upon request (although it would be a nice upgrade for future versions of TWL). Someone like Certes might be able to comment on the technical feasibility of setting up such a one-off transaction, although I recognize that TWL is not Wikipedia, and so they might not have access to TWL's table structure. But somebody does, and if you're willing to chase this down, find the right person, grovel appropriately (and maybe send them some cactus) and get approval to do this, we can move forward with it. (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I expect someone who maintains that database could swap the access but I very much doubt that users would be allowed to do so. The privilege level you'd need would allow you to do all sorts of things which the owner would consider undesirable such as granting or revoking everyone's access. Certes (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, Certes, if those particular journals would lighten up a bit, and consider Wikipedia in the same manner they do other educational institutions (universities), it wouldn't be an issue & Jake could get a lot more done. All volunteers would have access provided we're doing it for the project. I mentioned something along this line on Jimbo's UTP years ago when I realized how quickly the paywalls were growing, and access was becoming more difficult. The WMF could easily work a deal with Springer, JSTOR, etc. the same way universities have done - and what TWL has managed to do but in a limited way. If it requires an annual fee for us to get access, why aren't they doing it? WMF has the funds to give us the resources we need to do our jobs. We're simply volunteers trying to build this project on our own time and on less than a shoestring budget, some of which we contributed to ourselves during fund drives. And now Enterprise is capitalizing on our work (Metadata). Where will those funds be going? Just some thoughts while I'm struggling to get access to the tools I need to do my job at NPP/AfC. Atsme💬📧15:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This isn't my area of expertise but I see that our DOI links often hit paywalls. I believe Portuguese Wikipedia reroutes DOI links to free sources. It may not help in this case but English Wikipedia could consider doing similarly. There are downsides – sometimes preprints rather than final versions – but an accessible preprint may be better than an inaccessible perfect version. I also use local solutions such as Unpaywall, but they're not on by default and most casual readers won't discover them. I dislike seeing greedy corporations charging a non-profit for access to government-funded research done in public universities, but this may not be the place for me to ride that hobby-horse. Certes (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
One other thing, though; I thought JSTOR was part of the automatic basic set that everybody who is extended confirmed automatically gets at TWL, whether they apply, or not. Can you double check that you don't already have it? Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Morning, Mathglot - I do get 256 results, but depending on whether the article/journal is open access, all I get is the abstract and the message following that reads: This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. I'm not a member of a university that has access, and TWL doesn't have any openings, so the full paper is unavailable to me. Atsme💬📧15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Mathglot!! Actually, I've had that extension in Chrome for quite some time but it doesn't always work. I guess the paywalls have figured it out, so if you know a work-around let me know. I also noticed that in the last update of Chrome, we are no longer able to manually delete specific cookies planted by sources that allowed a set number of free views before they start blocking you. They've even figured out incognito. Fortunately, re:TWL – I now have access to Nature, JSTOR, & Newspapers.com so I'm good to go. Atsme💬📧17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not that they've figured it out, it's that there isn't always a free version available, so nothing to find (gray padlock) so no workaround for that (other than try WP:RX). Otoh, if you're getting a green padlock and it goes nowhere when you click it, that's a bug in Unpaywall which should be reported to them. If that's what you are seeing, give me an article search to try, and I'll file a bug. Glad to hear you have access to what you need, now! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I will also offer my condolences, it is really hard to lose a loved one. I wish you the very best for the future, and I hope you have a good day. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 12:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and kind words, Zippy. My focus on AI for NPP, and seeing your good work as a new patroller have served to brighten some of the darkest parts of my day. Again, thank you. Atsme💬📧12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Ovinus. An ocean separates me from family, but we manage with FaceTime. Mom, who will be 98 in September, was hospitalized with COVID the week before my sister passed. She was released from the hospital on the 16th, and is with my oldest sister slowly recovering. When it rains, it pours. WP has actually been somewhat of a blessing in that I'm preoccupied with NPP, which leaves fewer opportunities for depression to consume my days. Atsme💬📧02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm very sad to hear you've lost a sibling. As you're aware, I went through a similar loss last summer myself. Know your chosen family supports you regardless of geography, and your sisterhood here is a part of your value to the community. We love you even when we disagree. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, Buster...thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. They bring comfort in these trying times, and are much appreciated. As ever...~ Atsme💬📧10:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I know, I know, I'm retired and I am but I would be a terrible advocate for empathy and love if I didn't come here and express my heart. I am so, so sorry for the loss of your sister. I love you and when you hurt I hurt with you. I don't know the circumstances of your sisters relationship with you but I do know the interactions we have with those we love never leave us and are a part of our LifeSong. A small consolation for not having them in front us anymore but her Song now lives through you. What a beautiful gift we are given to carry the life of our loved ones with us. I have lost everyone (parents and grandparents) except my siblings, physically, but even some of them are lost to me in life. Mourn, remember, cherish and love them for who they were to you. It's okay to not know how to pick up broken pieces sometimes. This place was a refuge for me during a difficult time in my life too. You had a very specific role in that. Thank you, Atsme. Your love shined through and I honestly believe it's part of why I am alive today. I hope that encourages you. Keep walking! I'll keep singing over you. --ARoseWolf14:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Such beautiful words – a blanket of warmth and comfort at a time when it's needed most. Thank you. I know the sentiment comes straight from your heart, ARoseWolf. People who were meant to find each other often do, as evidenced by the people in this discussion and how we've touched each other's lives, albeit through the vastness of cyberspace, which makes it even more remarkable. Atsme💬📧15:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, SJ - it was very kind and thoughtful of you to stop by and share your feelings. Time heals and clears the way for the good memories. I certainly haven't stopped making them. Atsme💬📧15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
So sorry for the loss of your loved one, Atsme. It's sometimes hard to know the plan, but you can take comfort in the fact that you and your sister are in thoughts of those who care for you. Even faceless wiki-friends. GenQuest"scribble"16:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
So sweet of you, Gen - thank you so much. It has been a while since we last communicated, so it was especially nice to read your thoughtful words, and quite comforting to know that you are still here on WP...and better yet, that you are still my wiki-friend. 🤗 Atsme💬📧18:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to you Atsme. I know words can fall short in a time like this but I am glad to read that you are still making good memories. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk18:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, MarnetteD - your stopping by made-up for any shortfall in words, had there been any. The simplest actions to show someone you care is sufficient. Atsme💬📧21:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BD2412. The hardest part of life is knowing there's an expiration date. Not knowing the date makes it a little easier to bear. When that inevitable day arrives, expected or unexpectedly, it reminds the living of their own vulnerabilities, and that maybe it's time to adjust what we once considered our priorities. Put simply, make more time available to be with family and friends. Atsme💬📧21:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am without words, because there are none. I am going to keep it short and sweet: stay strong; hug those close to you. Life is too short, and I am thinking of you. HouseBlastertalk02:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi there @Atsme. First, I can see the post above. Very sorry to here - genuinely. Lost my mother two years ago, and I remember the raw pain so well. Very much wishing you the best.
Given the above, I will understand if you aren't quite up to NPPS school at present. However if you are, I'd love to participate. I am right at the end of CVUA, and looking to patrol new pages. Have been interested for a while. I have chosen you as a potential trainer because I like the style of training you offer. I can commit to steadily working with you till graduation, I will not waste your time.
Thank you for the well-wishes, MaxnaCarta. My sincere condolences and heartfelt sympathy for your loss. I feel that I am well-braced for what lies ahead as Mom nears her 98th birthday, adding that she beat COVID despite her heartache over the loss of her middle daughter. She's a fighter, and advised all of us to stay strong. Her words served as a reminder of all that is good in life, and the value of having family and friends who love you, and for me that includes wikifriends. I would be honored to serve as your trainer for NPP. I will prepare your lesson page, and ping you when it is ready. You can begin as soon as you complete the CVUA course, or whenever you'd like. Happy editing!! Atsme💬📧12:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks heaps @Atsme. I'm only 30, so had hoped she would be around much longer, but thems the breaks hey? Does not make it any easier. Let's hope your mum has a few (or more!) years left! Who knows, 98 is a damn great effort and if she can make it that far amongst COVID and losing a child, she could be here for quite a while! Sending you well wishes from Australia. Lets distract ourselves with some learning shall we? I'd love to get started. The CVUA exam will take ages because my trainer sets a few specific edits like NPOV and SPAM that are not always easy to find, while they are made, they do not often show up in Redwarn. So in the interim, happy to get started on this too. Cheers Atsme. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC) (Max)
Check this out
Johnny Pierce. Might be deleted by now; I'll email you a saved copy if it is. Someone (User:BishopRifle) created an AI-generated hoax article, at least it looks like one, spammed with copious fake references. The rest Some of his/her contributions look to also be hoaxes and I'll have to go through them. Ovinus (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
😳 I kept seeing new unsourced articles created with the citations needed tag, which is what raised the red flag for me about AI spamming, and one of the reasons I’m working with the BoT to get us the resources to stop/prevent this from happening. Good catch, Ovinus!! Atsme💬📧08:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
After discussing with my daughter who so gingerly stated that I've been moping too much this last week (Out of the mouth of babes), I've decided to help you and the Wikiproject for dogs in a very limited capacity. I'm not sure how much I can offer but I will do my best to assist the project. I still have a lot going on with winter preparations but I will start involving myself as soon as possible. If you have suggested things I can do to start with I would appreciate it. Also any advice you may can offer as you have been with the project for some time now. You asked that I not keep you waiting too long so, here I am. --ARoseWolf13:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
How could I not be thinking of ARoseWolf when everything I saw was Canis lupus, and not consider you as a potential member of our Canis lupus familiaris WP project? Hopefully, it will be something to keep your mind occupied, exercise your brain, and maintain your interest. It really gets fun during Happy Hour. j/k Please visit WP:WikiProject Dogs, and add your name to the list of participants, feel free to wander around the site and familiarize yourself with all we've got going on, or that needs to be going on. Main discussions take place at WT:WikiProject Dogs, which is also where we post notices. Happy editing & welcome aboard!! Atsme💬📧14:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I have had so many encounters with wolves, from the alpha female wolf that lost her mate and her two daughters that basically adopted me years ago (I lost contact with them when we moved up here and I've only been able to relocate them once since then), to the old wolf that met me when we moved here to the recent wolf encounter my sister-in-law and I had on a ptarmigan harvest we went on in which very persistent and hungry wolves sought to have us for a potential meal. When it comes to domestic dogs, Huskies and Malamutes are the only two breeds I have really come into contact with though one of my neighbors in Haines did have a miniature Schnauzer, cute little dog. Thank you, I'm all signed up and I had already looked over the project and the talk page beforehand. I have watchlisted the project for notices. --ARoseWolf15:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes, a hat just brings trouble. Whatever you do, don't pith in your hat. Cheers! --Tryp I've heard of tinfoil hats, but doesn't the one in the photo look like a dish antenna? --Tryp (again)
For my (talk page stalker) - I simply hatted an off-topic attack against me by an editor who copied a discussion on his UTP and pasted it at WP:RSN. They obviously ran out of arguments to support their position, so they started attacking me. Nice, huh? Atsme💬📧17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Facepalm I went there to tell them off, but by the time I got there, they had already apologized for starting it. So it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I knew there was something about you that was off. You should wear more hats, I did even before I lost all my hair due to chemo. It's growing back now but it was over four feet long. My daughter and niece loved braiding it with various wild flowers. Still I think you would enjoy my purple velvet hat with yellow sunflower. It's totally you, Tryp. I even have fairy wings to go with it. You could be a Flying Tryptofish --ARoseWolf19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
So Tryp got a pedestal, and I got a porcelain throne...that flushes...and I wear hats!! Sumptin' seriously wrong with that picture. Atsme💬📧20:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
