User talk:Voorts/Archive 33
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Hi voorts,
Thank you for taking the time to analyze and close the long-overdue WP:Articles for deletion/1905 (film). As you correctly noted in your closing note, this was certainly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that per WP:NACD, it is best left for an admin to close. There's a fair chance an admin will close it the same way you did, but since both Delete and Merge are viable potential outcomes here, being closed by someone who can implement any of those outcomes will eliminate any appearance that the close was even partly dictated by the tools you have on hand. Personally, I find all but one of the Keep !votes to be exceptionally weak, with some of their "source analysis" being self-serving and dishonest. But of course, I'm involved. I hope you understand, and revert your close to leave this for an admin. Feel free to ping any of the regular AfD closers, so that this doesn't sit there for another two weeks...Thank you! Owen× ☎ 22:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @OwenX, I'm pretty busy preparing for vacation. Please feel free to revert the close on my behalf. @Liz, are you free to close this? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I second OwenX's call for a reopening of this AFD. There were two Delete !votes, one was made before I presented additional research of sources, and the other was based on an unreasonably biased and misleading statement. This argument tried to denounce all of the sources I presented, focusing particularly on one that they found weak instead of a thorough analysis, and using a faulty translation followed by a misinterpretation of WP:SIGCOV. I do not find this argument convincing, and I retain my stance that it should be kept. As I mentioned in my previous reply in the discussion, I will defer to the decision of the closer. I think Voorts' conclusion of No Consensus is reasonable, but I believe it would be even better to have additional input from an experienced admin. I appreciate both Voorts and Liz for taking the time to review the discussion! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This argument tried to denounce all of the sources I presented
- no one made such an argument there. The closest I find there is disproving your claim that all twelve sources you cited provide SIGCOV. All it took to disprove your claim was to show that at least one of those twelve sources did not provide SIGCOV. Since you didn't amend your original statement, I can only conclude that you are relying on a dishonest assertion, just like you are trying to rely on a strawman argument here. This is not how WP works. Owen× ☎ 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I second OwenX's call for a reopening of this AFD. There were two Delete !votes, one was made before I presented additional research of sources, and the other was based on an unreasonably biased and misleading statement. This argument tried to denounce all of the sources I presented, focusing particularly on one that they found weak instead of a thorough analysis, and using a faulty translation followed by a misinterpretation of WP:SIGCOV. I do not find this argument convincing, and I retain my stance that it should be kept. As I mentioned in my previous reply in the discussion, I will defer to the decision of the closer. I think Voorts' conclusion of No Consensus is reasonable, but I believe it would be even better to have additional input from an experienced admin. I appreciate both Voorts and Liz for taking the time to review the discussion! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Err... The reason I brought up the twelve sources in the first place was replying to your Delete !vote, as you had stated that you saw plenty of sources but found none satisfying SIGCOV, and I begged to differ. In my subsequent reply, I have already provided further proof and rationale for why I believe the China Times source you specifically chose to challenge in your comment was, albeit weaker than the others, still valid. You did not respond with thorough analysis or substantive arguments, and instead included a misleadingly trimmed-down translation, followed by an accusation of dishonesty on my part. I still stand by the same stance and rationales that I have presented since my initial !vote, so I am not sure how that constitutes dishonesty on my end. I can understand that you may feel upset when someone else pointed out flaws in your arguments. It is totally fine, we all make mistakes at times. But the fact that this AFD was already concluded nearly two weeks ago, yet you are still bringing it back up, perhaps provides a clearer picture of what is going on. Just let the closing admin decide. I have nothing further to add. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- One, and only one, of the following two statements can be true:
- All twelve cited sources provide SIGCOV; or
- At least one of those twelve cited sources does not provide SIGCOV.
- I don't need to go over each and every one of the twelve to prove that Statement #1 is false. All I need to do is pick one - any one. Most AfD participants are at least truthful enough that I don't have to check the veracity of their statements. I originally thought you made an honest mistake, but it soon became clear you were not above twisting the truth to get your way. You conceded that China Times source did not provide SIGCOV of the level we expect, yet here you are, still arguing that your original claim was true, and that I said that none of the sources you cited provided SIGCOV. Are you hoping no one reads that exchange to see you are being dishonest? Is every dirty trick allowed in your strive to keep your pet page?
- The AfD is not "concluded". It is open. But my argument here has nothing to do with the article. It has to do with user conduct that is unbefitting a Wikipedia editor. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- One, and only one, of the following two statements can be true:
- Err... The reason I brought up the twelve sources in the first place was replying to your Delete !vote, as you had stated that you saw plenty of sources but found none satisfying SIGCOV, and I begged to differ. In my subsequent reply, I have already provided further proof and rationale for why I believe the China Times source you specifically chose to challenge in your comment was, albeit weaker than the others, still valid. You did not respond with thorough analysis or substantive arguments, and instead included a misleadingly trimmed-down translation, followed by an accusation of dishonesty on my part. I still stand by the same stance and rationales that I have presented since my initial !vote, so I am not sure how that constitutes dishonesty on my end. I can understand that you may feel upset when someone else pointed out flaws in your arguments. It is totally fine, we all make mistakes at times. But the fact that this AFD was already concluded nearly two weeks ago, yet you are still bringing it back up, perhaps provides a clearer picture of what is going on. Just let the closing admin decide. I have nothing further to add. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I genuinely think you are interpreting things the wrong way around. I originally thought you had simply missed my points or did not review the Chinese and Japanese sources I presented, as you seemingly had addressed the English sources only. That is why I replied, suggesting you to review the twelve sources I quoted, which all seem decent to me. If you have noticed, my initial question (the first time I replied to you) was about half of the sources in the discussion not covering production difficulties. Did you really review all the sources presented in the discussion thoroughly before you cast your Delete !vote, so you would realise that plenty of the sources are unrelated to production difficulties? Is that also an act of dishonesty?
- Even until this moment, I have made the same argument multiple times, explaining why I believe the China Times source should be considered as passing SIGCOV. I am totally open to disagreement, but you did not even address why you think the three rebuttals (especially the mistranslation, which I could also consider as an act of dishonesty) I made were wrong, and instead straight-up called me dishonest and stuffs, to the point where I feel you are taking my disagreement on your views personally. I am tired from engaging in this discussion, and I see no point in continue bothering Voorts here. Of all the hundreds of AFDs I have participated in, both here and on the zhwiki, this one tops the list as the most pointless. You may continue to comment on the AFD page. But there is really nothing further for me to add, as long as you refrain from your personal attacks. It is night time in my time zone. Good night. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
|
The Reviewer Barnstar | |
| This award is given in recognition to Voorts for accumulating at least 50 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
|
Worm Gear Award | |
| This award is given in recognition to Voorts for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Max von Sydow on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|