This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pbritti. 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.
@Syazwi Irfan: Hi! Thanks for reaching out and apologies for not replying earlier—I got distracted at work and forgot that I had acted but failed to notify you. I undid your draftification due to concern for procedure. Typically, articles that have survived more than 90 days in the mainspace are considered too established to be draftified without discussion in an AFD or some other collaborative process. There are exceptions and I actually don't like this standard practice, but a broad consensus of many trusted and more experienced editors disagree with my opinion on this. I have nominated the article as a PROD, a "proposed deletion", which is a good procedure for low-traffic, long-unsourced articles. If no one disagrees with this PROD, the article will be deleted after seven days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Syazwi Irfan: No, as you draftified an article that was already in the mainspace. You moving it into the draft space was out of procedure (not really a big deal, but I'd discourage it going forward). As such, I undid your move and applied a PROD to the article. Let me know I need to do a more thorough review of the process involved and I'll gladly detail it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you have draftified the article yourself? because it doesn't really make sense to me (personally). but I am just saying though. It's just an opinion of mine. and also don't reply, I fully understand of what you said. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Request on 17:41:45, 8 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ivanhoe2012
I don't entirely understand how it is not sufficiently notable enough. It's a significant open source initiative with backing from major industry players. I understand your point to a degree, but there are Wikipedia pages on minor topics and even individuals who use it to promote themselves, so it seems like a double standard.
@ThadeusOfNazereth: Apologies, I meant to reply earlier today! I should have a good opportunity either tomorrow or Tuesday to look over the article in-depth, but I like what I see thus far. Hoping to see it in a good enough state for an FAC soon! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much (and always glad to find another debater)! I will be visiting family over the holidays with lots of down time and will take a look at your peer review as well :) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!21:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
RE: "All sources are either primary or trying to sell a product"
Hi,
because I appreciate your matter-of-fact and expert manner: May I draw your attention to the article Franz Boehm (resistance fighter) where a single user reinserts the same statements over and over again – that Boehm is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, that he has a feast etc., without any proper source. Up to my information there hasn't even been opened a beatification process at the time: some 13 years ago there was a petition to the bishop to open a process, but so far nothing else. I tried to open a discussion on the talk page this with the user, but he insists in reverting the corrections and calling them "vandalism". Have you any advice? Thank you. --Medusahead (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Apology, honorable gentleman, if you would give me a little of your valuable time to tell me where a pro NATO userbox is to put it in my profile with the sole purpose of supporting Ukraine, I would appreciate it. Greetings and have a good day. I wish you the best. Gear495 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@WikiExplorerAbhi: You have repeatedly inserted unreferenced content, which goes against Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Sources you add tend to be either unreliable or not independent from the subject. Additionally, the edits you make have a promotional tone (eg the college has played a pivotal role in shaping the educational landscape of the region, The serene surroundings contribute to a conducive learning environment), constituting puffery. Overall, I would say that it is fairly likely you have a significant conflict of interest regarding the school and other elements of Catholic higher education in the region. While having external relationships with the subjects you edit about is not prohibited, the fact you have not edited in a neutral fashion indicates you probably should not edit in those subject areas. Further addition of unreferenced and non-neutral content could result in you being blocked, so consider focusing on other content and practicing neutral editing for a while before returning to articles like that of Saint Philomena College, Puttur. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@User:WikiExplorerAbhi it is not me. Go hound someone else. I dont care about that article. Ever heard of an IP which is used by many people? Ikipedia2 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm noticing some suspicious activity related to the Kosovo Security Force and the alleged Kosovo Air Force. Over the last few days, five accounts have been making unsourced changes to Kosovo Security Force; these accounts being Elmedinhajr, Eron Lushaj, Illyrianzz, IllyStar, and, most recently, USIllyria.. The last three all seem to be referencing Illyria and the Illyrians, which was what first caught my attention. USIllyria. is the oldest account and has almost 800 edits which do not necessarily fit the pattern of the other accounts, but the fact that there are two other accounts with usernames referencing Illyria still makes me suspect that there may be a connection. The other four accounts were all created between May and October 2023, and they all seem to have shifted their primary focus from general Kosovo-related topics to primarily the Kosovo Security Force and/or Kosovo Air Force articles. All accounts have made similar edits since shifting their focus, mainly making unsourced changes to the equipment of the KSF. I don't know that there is enough evidence to bring this to WP:SPI, or if what I'm seeing is even sockpuppetry or some sort of WP:MEAT, but I at least want to let you know to watch out for anything else that might indicate a connection. - ZLEAT\C19:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@ZLEA: Y'ain't crazy–I've had an SPI out on about half the nest, which can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leotrimylli. I've been waiting for a response since the 18th. As I understand it, there's something of a major CU backlog. If you manage to find an admin with some time on their hands and you can scrounge up some more diffs, a behavioral evidence sock/meat block might be achievable. Let me know if you want help setting that up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll see what I can do to help later. I had heard of an SPI backlog, but I didn't know it was this bad. - ZLEAT\C20:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The ANI discussion does not seem to be getting any admin attention. Liz said that she'd take a look at it, but so far she has not participated in the discussion. I'm not sure where to go from here. Hopefully the SPI is closed soon, but the strain on the dwindling number of admins is really starting to show. - ZLEAT\C23:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
@ZLEA: Several times now I have been moments away from posting something to AN to the effect of "where the devil are the admins?" My frustration with the breakdown in admin response time this last three or so months has really started to boil over. I've busied myself with a longer-form article creation, but it's starting to get to me. At this point, I'm almost willing to !vote yes to any poor sod willing to stand before RFA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
With the current state of RfA (which is 99% of the problem, if you ask me), I wouldn't want to go through the process of becoming an admin either. Wikipedia is in dire need of admins but there are few who want to even try. I used to not have an opinion about RfA reform, but now I see that it is urgently needed. - ZLEAT\C15:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
@Ikipedia2: Is it a machine translation (something like Google Translate) of the article? Unfortunately, the translation is very poor. If you would like, please send me some reliable sources on the topic (in English, Russian, or whatever language you find them in) and I'll work on the page with you. I don't know Russian, but a friend does and she probably has at least a spare five minutes to examine a source and confirm what's in it. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's not very kind to say. You are welcome to resubmit the draft, but I recommend expansion utilizing additional reliable sources. An English-language source isn't required but it may expedite the review. Good luck, let me know if you change your mind on the offer to help. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti someone else approved it, again, I can do much more productive edits, then arguing with you about the merits of the article. Continue to decline articles and refuse to help the new editors. *shrug* Ikipedia2 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Please explain undue weight while erasing everything.
Hello, I hope everything goes well. You erased an edit I made about the Virgin of Guadalupe and added “With respect, I worry that this is undue weight to this specific visualization”. Could you elaborate please. The edit has sources and even images. Also, if there is undue weight why erase everything? It strikes me as strange that only American artists are mentioned and you don’t deem that as undue weight. What would you need to see? I am trying to understand how you’re seeing it. Thanks in advance.TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@TepeyacPilgrim: Wikipedia has standards for inclusion of material that includes consideration of due weight and recentism. While these generally apply to excluding material that could be construed as violating our neutrality policy, they also consider the importance and encyclopedic character of content. In this case, these depictions are relatively recent and do not appear to have any had any significant and long-lasting impact on the subject of the article. If coverage of these images persists or scholarly work references them in some capacity, they should be mentioned. However, as of right now, mention to them amounts to little more than trivia. If further explanation is needed, I'll gladly elaborate. By the way, it isn't an issue here, but consider avoiding bolding talk page messages, as they can be easily misconstrued as aggressive. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. My first message was cordial and friendly, by no means I intended to be aggressive. For some reason the whole text went all bold. But hope my next text doesn’t make you upset, since I have a few thoughts. Thing is, I was asking you about your personal thoughts on why due weight would merit erasing all — especially when (again) only American artists are mentioned. That’s why I also asked about that issue about American artists, which I didn’t get any answer from that as well. If we go by due weight as being, for instance, adding abundant text on a minority view, the same could be said about the whole section talking only about American artists (over-abundantly). I agree with you in the sense of the length of the text, if that would be the only reason for the deletion. I love reaching consensus and believe in accepting one’s faults. True, the text was lengthy now that I reflect about it. But still think it is important to note. Which leads me to the “trivia” situation you rose. There has been numerous media coverage on that issue since 2021. I could say my mistake was to reference the most recent media coverage. And yet, I ask, is almost three years not enough? Or the fact that there are media outlets doing follow-ups now and then… does that count? True, I am learning. And that’s why I reached to you and still do with the utmost respect. But even if we analyze Recentism, this is not a mere fun fact since it has gained traction in media (perhaps not US-based media, but it sure has in different other countries) and amongst popular art in the Catholic community in Latin America (though I accept this last statement is difficult to source per Wikipedia requisites). Let me explain. People are actually making posters and art with this image. Even several Mexican dioceses have started using it to make ads for Church events. But I digress, perhaps in an effort to open an amicable communication with you. I hope the system doesn’t put my text in bold. Hoping this message finds you well, and again, hoping you have a nice day. Thanks in advance. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
