User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archives/2023

Chan Chun Sing

Hey. Uhh, did you mean to delete this? I see the chat on the creator's talk page so I guess we can wait for them to respond. Just curious about the tag. Thanks! --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gordonrox24: No I just added the tag in case they didn't add anything else (rather than deleting outright), which they ended up doing anyway, so no worries. --IWI (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hah ok. I just did a couple of double takes when I read your name on the tag. All good. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Aguascalientes page move

Hey IWI! I would like to move Aguascalientes Municipality to Aguascalientes City, because the article as written is about the city, not the municipality. However, there is currently an article at Aguascalientes City, although it has very little information and could be deleted. The city is within the municipality, and it seems that the vast majority of people in the municipality live in the city, so I don't think two pages are really necessary. Do you think you could make this move somehow, even if by deleting Aguascalientes City or moving without leaving a redirect? Lights and freedom (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I did it, but I moved the old article for the city to Aguascalientes (city) and turned it into a redirect, to preserve the history. --IWI (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution, thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Nova Lee LeClair

A4 says If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable [...] the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead. While that part of the policy isn't followed to the letter most of the time, I find it's better to just RfD when it's disputed to let the community comment on it. There's no harm in letting it sit for a week. --Ferien (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien: But it's hard to imagine a case where a page creator is going to agree with a QD. It’s just a case of whether they contest it beforehand. It's also worth noting that A4 is not actually referring to whether the subject is notable or not, it is whether the page itself claims that the person has significance. Indeed, a notable subject could still have an article about them deleted via A4 if the article did not have a "credible claim of significance", as the enwiki equivalent describes it. So if an admin decides that there is no such claim on the page, an RfD is unnecessary. --IWI (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Accidentally requested WP:QD G3

I accidentally requested G3 on Talk:Japanese war fan and it should've been WP:QD G8 since it's a talk page with no main page. I know you added the talk page template to it but I'm not sure a main page would ever be created for it. Thanks! Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks; I missed that. Gone :) --IWI (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sweet, thank you :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Mace a Teahouse

go to WP:Teahouse pls 122.53.47.47 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Page deletion request

Hi IWI, I hope you're well, When you have a spare 5 minutes could you kindly delete User talk:Davey2010/Archive Changes please?, (Thank you for reverting the vandalism there btw),
Up until now I had no idea that page even existed and chances are unless it's vandalised again then I'll just forget its existence again for the next 10 years lol,
Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Davey2010,  Done --Ferien (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks @Ferien greatly appreciated, Take care both of you, Warmest Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Hi Davey, good to hear from you mate :) Thanks Ferien. --IWI (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WAT WAS RONG WITH MY EDITS?!

HELLO!!!1 WAS WAS RONG WITH MY EDITS?! WHEN I MADE THE PAGE OF THE OHIO GRIDDY COMPETITION, I USED A RELIABLE SOURCE!!!!!!! WHAT DID I DO QRONG?!/ 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 😠 History Utah Maker (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@History Utah Maker: Your page is a hoax. If you recreate it, you will be blocked from editing. --IWI (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK SO. IF I SAY ITS A FICTIONAL WIL IT BEE ALLOWED?!?!??!?! --History Utah Maker (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@History Utah Maker: No. No reliable sources exist. --IWI (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

--History Utah Maker (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source, and that looks like a Cameo video (he was paid to say it). --IWI (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Typo?

List of sociologists from Asia. See List of scientists from Asia. Regards! 2001:2020:31D:FE78:287C:93A8:829E:6CA0 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes so redirecting to List of sociologists is not a correct action, because the article is a list of sociologists worldwide, not just Asia. --IWI (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve with your recent changes, but they have not been helpful. --IWI (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Before you blank sections

List of sociologists. Please consider how you can improve section List_of_sociologists#B. After all, you are the one who has imported that section from English-wiki.--Note the red links: Just about none of them say how that person is wiki-notable (and our wiki does not have a source).--It would be nice if you look into that matter, before blanking any section. Regards! 2001:2020:335:FAC1:24F2:2E02:7ED2:1808 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Question

Can you delete all the articles i created? 40.138.162.44 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Invalid deletion of it is a Small earth

An amusement park ride isn't nonsense, so please undelete the page. Gemink (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The page's content made no sense, thus fits the G1 criteria, so I will not undelete it. --IWI (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Deaths in month pages

The "deaths in month" pages have some confusing wording. Take Deaths in August 2021: it says 'For deaths that should be noted before the month that the world is in, please see "Months".' This makes sense when it's the current month, but for previous months, it doesn't make sense. How do you think this should be changed? (I previously brought this up here.) Lights and freedom (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom: Yes, I see, that is an issue. I don't think we need a sentence anything like that in the lead, so I would suggest removing the sentence. --IWI (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Two questions. 1) Do the deaths in month pages need the links at the bottom to other months? 2) For the deaths in year pages, like Deaths in 2021, do you think the second paragraph is needed, that says all entries must have a source? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

{{re|Lights and freedom} Sorry only just saw this. I would say no to both, especially (in the second case) considering the editnotice I added saying virtually the same thing. --IWI (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom: Oops, looks like I messed the ping up. --IWI (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I ask for reading and logic. Have not made any personal comments but you state I did.

IWI, I just put in place at the presentation (first lines) of the articule what is stated in the following paragraphs to improve it by making it briefer to read without loosing any of its content. You state in a message that I should not put personal comments, so it goes in alignment with the no-bias politics (neutral point of view).

Well, a discredit (just as any insult) is not a neutral point of view. A praise also is not neutral. Both are given as opinions, and as such might be true or false, it is not our dutty to attest it INSIDE wikipedia. That would be in a court of other places. A neutral point of view is only possible by asserting that an opinion is an opinion and not a fact. Thus, unless something is widely really proven, both possible interpretations of a single fact MUST BE INCLUDED in a wikipedia article.

What I am saying is that water is wet, so I know you know it and agree with it. Just writing to see if you attest to this langage logic.

So, a person that in its job at the Congress is always batlling in political issues, lives and breaths between honest and corrupt people, bribes and transparent accountings. When she EXPOSES a "hidden crime" or "hidden criminal agenda" or "faulty behavior", of course she is a whistleblower. It does not mean that what she expreses is truth, it just means she is asking for attention on the subject for public and possible legal scrutiny. Only later her exposure could be labeled as truthfull or just thoughtfull (fact or unsubsantianated theory). Thus, the characterization of ANYONE as "conspiracy theorist" reduces the logic of what is said. Any can create a theory.

This Congress woman would not create a "conspiracy explanation" out of thin air. She has some facts. Which are obvious all around the political shceme. So, some people would call her a "conspiracy theorist", exactly those that would wants to keep on going with the conspiracy, or those who are so naive or numb or hypersensitive that cannot tolerate that possible reality.

Then, she is, by pure logic a whistleblower and also a conspiraty theorist. Both at the same time. And THAT IS A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW! 2.138.180.33 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong; we go by what reliable sources say. You did not provide any source for your change, so I reverted it. If a reliable source is provided, the content may be able to stay. However, reliable sources seem to state that she is a far-right conspiracy theorist. --IWI (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Another IP messing with the cartoon pages

2600:1700:5110:EA0:B5FE:E0C3:FFAD:8C56 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Lights and freedom (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We gotta put a filter or something in place to catch these guys.... Derpdart56 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the 64 range for a month, thank you Lights and freedom. --IWI (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to tell you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "#Did you know". Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello ImprovedWikiImprovment: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Ferien (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message