User talk:RiggedMint/Archive2022

You've got mail!

Hello, RiggedMint. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

but it's a Discord message instead. --Ferien (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll check it when I have the time to. Dingo^Talk 17:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it's not urgent :) --Ferien (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability

An article is considered a stub if it is not complete to the extent that it is very small. If what the article is about doesn't show notability then it can be sent to RfD(such as an article about myself). If the page information doesn't actually show notability, then it can be tagged(such as Pooh Shiesty). It is not about the topic, it is about the information that is given in the article. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: I know what a stub is, a stub may not have references, but it doesn't mean it is not notable. You can send it to RfD if you want to or not. I'm just letting you know that not all stubs have references. That's why they need to be expanded with refs and more information. Dingo^Talk 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about stubs, it just literally does not claim any notability. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

But stubs don't need references to be notable? Dingo^Talk 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about stubs. Why are you bringing up stubs? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the article we we're talking about is a stub. Dingo^Talk 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that it doesn't claim to be notable. The article could be extensively longer but without any claim to notability, it's not fit to be an article. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

But it can be fit to be an article, because it has potential to be one. Dingo^Talk 20:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about; it does have the potential to be an article, but without any claim to notability, it's not notable. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So can we make it one? Dingo^Talk 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can make it notable, but it does not claim to be notable as of right now. This is why I want to put that tag on. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In terms of tagging, as little tagging as possible is best. Tags stay on for years most of the time and recently I've been dealing with BLP unsourced tags, some of which have stayed on for 10 years... The BLP unsourced tag should, in my opinion, only be placed on the article if there is controversial information or there's lots with no sources. If it's just a one sentence stub like it is here, it's probably not worth it. And with the notability tag, if they are notable, then we shouldn't have the tag on the article. --Ferien (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They are, however, not notable. There's a reason that people put on the tag and that is to track it in the future and have someone fix it. Wikipedia doesn't have a due date and it's likely that someone will notice it for that reason and fix it. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pooh Shiesty, the article who you linked here and who I believe you are talking about, is clearly notable. Notability tags are only for articles where the notability of something/someone is questionable. If someone else (although preferably not the page creator...) finds it notable for any reason, it can be removed. The problem is these tags make an otherwise adequate article look bad. Readers wouldn't think badly of the article if the tag wasn't on there. The main problem is there isn't much content, and that's why we have the stub template. --Ferien (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The notability is questionable. Where in the article does it claim the person is notable? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking simply at that article, it is easy to question the notability. But if you're going to do more of a check than just the article, you'll find a full sourced article on enwiki which yes, isn't alone a reason for keeping an article but typically shows the person is notable, and searching online will give you loads of sources as well. --Ferien (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I get this; but an article is not judged by other articles; it is judged by the actual article itself. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The notability tag is mainly for articles where we're not sure whether to RfD or not. In this case, another editor has discovered it is notable so there's no need for the notability tag. --Ferien (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate tag in which an article does not show notability, then? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that I can find, but not showing notability is not an issue if we know someone is notable, in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would think that an article that fails to show notability is a problem. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 17:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The article can always be improved as soon as you find one, it is not as if the articles are going to get improved when you add any sort of tag to the article. --Ferien (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Then what is the point of having tags? Tags are a sort of "do later" to notify people that can be going through there later. I am planning on going through a bunch of tags in the future. Doesn't mean they're useless. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In the case of showing notability, a tag doesn't exist so you can't use a tag. I'm not saying tags are useless, but they shouldn't be used often. --Ferien (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly think one should be made then. If an article needs to be improved, then so be it. There's really no downside to having a tag. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the tag making the page look much worse than it actually is of course, especially for notability or unreferenced BLPs. --Ferien (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "making the page look much worse" MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 16:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A massive tag at the top of the page makes problems much more visible for readers. Yes, sometimes an unreferenced BLP tag is necessary, but most of the time, tags are unnecessary and not worth putting on, especially for one-sentence stubs where no sourcing is really possible unless it's expanded, which is what the stub tag is for. --Ferien (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

I am an English teacher for foreign language students and I was hoping to use this as a resource. Unfortunately it is not English, but american with all the americanised spelling mistakes that I am constantly correcting with my students. You need to run the whole site through an English spell checker or change the name to 'Simple American Wikipedia'. 2A02:908:4B42:78E0:8D47:ECBD:3207:EBFF (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps visit Wikipedia:Simple talk for your concerns. Articles should be spelled as they are relevant to the area, so Donald Trump will be spelled in American English and Sydney, Australia will be spelled in Australian English. If you see any inconsistencies or are unsure, ask in the article's talk page or in simple talk. Remember WP:Be bold and be sure to edit if you are sure. Thank you. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Why talk on my page for this? Dingo^Talk 19:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably the first person they saw that they wanted to argue with. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 22:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

CBS Dream Team

If you want to simplify that go ahead and remove my QD. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, it's seems like the guy is simplifying the page. So I can understand why it looked like the guy was copy/pasting. Dingo^Talk 14:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They are blocked for one year on enwikiquote and enwikipedia, so just exercise some caution there -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They are a school-IP, of course they would be blocked on en-wiki and others. Dingo^Talk 14:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate RfD

Someone had removed your RfD tag from the article. It was on my alerts and when I saw the page, I tagged it. When I noticed it was a second nom, I looked closer and noticed that the tag was removed and reverted back to the last "good" edit. Forgot to QD the request itself. Sorry bout that. --Creol(talk) 20:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Infantilism

Are you sure that your revert was accurate? English Wikipedia (en:Paraphilic infantilism) says "Although it is commonly confused with pedophilia, the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not seek children as sexual partners." Lights and freedom (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom: Go ahead and remove the revert if you think it is wrong. I sometimes revert things even though it is good faith. Dingo^Talk 19:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, RiggedMint. You have a new email! Please check it at your convenience.
Message added 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC). You can take off this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Ferien (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)