User talk:Jack4576/Archive 2

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 1

Archive 2

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jack4576 reported by User:Nythar (Result: ). Thank you. —Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Only TWO of those diffs are about the use of the word "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the lede.

The other edits are about the use of criminal in OTHER areas of the article.

I did not revert another editor three times.

I request a WP:BOOMERANG on Nythar for this pointy ANI nomination please.

One of the diffs you've quoted in the ANI is a change of a single letter 'a' to 'A'.

This ANI nomination is in part motivated, no doubt, by our recent run-ins at ANI over AfD in the past."

Please copy the above, verbatim, to the ANI, as I am currently blocked from editing in that space. Thanks.

Jack4576 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add to the ANI the following, and strikeout my previous response:

"After reading the context more closely, I can see that the timestamp of this diff on 13 June 2023; (which was a reversion of Iskandar323)

is within 24 hours of these two instances of reversion:

Further Reversion number (1) (consisting of these two edits) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a first time
Further reversion number (2) (consisting of this edit) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a second time

and that I can see this was an breach of the 3RR. As arguably, the content of these edits overlap.

However, in my defence, I considered the editorial choice of whether to include the phrase "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the article, was a separate issue as to whether the term "criminal" should be used in the page at all.

I accept any punishment meted out in response for that breach; and I apologise for the 24 hour breach.

It was not my intention to edit war. I withdraw my request that Nythar be boomeranged.

Kind regards

Jack4576 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)"

Jack4576 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Ben Roberts-Smith for a period of indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: This is indefinite only because the software does not allow us to set separate block lengths for separate articles/namespaces (otherwise, I would have set it for a week or two). If the other editors involved in the wording dispute are persuaded that you will edit within a consensus, even one against the one you currently are urging, this part of the block can be lifted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576 (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request for Ben Roberts-Smith

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jack4576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The original intention of User:Daniel Case was to ban me from the BRS page for 1 - 2 weeks (as they have stated above on my talk page); however this was impossible because of the way admin settings work so I was indeffed from that page. Now that 2 weeks have passed I am requesting that my ban from Ben Roberts-Smith be lifted Jack4576 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are perfectly right: Daniel Case, the blocking administrator, made it perfectly clear that he thought a block from the article of at the most two weeks would be enough, and it has been longer than that, so there can be no justification for keeping the block. I shall therefore lift the block. Please bear in mind, though, that you must still respect consensus, whether you personally agree with it or not. JBW (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to this comment here ("I would like to be able to contribute again to the discussion"), you're only blocked from the article, not the talk page. Put another way, even with your existing block, you are still able to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, noted Aoi (青い), but obviously if I advocated for a change within the article as part of that discussion, it would be a block circumvention; so I need this block lifted. At the moment I want to change the wiki link on the words ‘balance of probability’ to link to a heading explaining the Australian civil proof standard which I wrote yesterday Jack4576 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are not topic-banned from the subject Ben Roberts-Smith, you are only blocked from editing the specific article Ben Roberts-Smith. You remain free to contribute to discussions on the talk page. You can also start a new thread on the talk page to propose your suggested wikilink change. If other editors agree with your suggested edit, they can make the edit on your behalf. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks for clarifying that. I’d also like the ability to make those kinds of changes myself in accordance with BRD; now that the 2 weeks as originally contemplated by Daniel Case is up. Jack4576 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you help with GA review of Soňa Červená. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re welcome ! Glad to see it went so well. Jack4576 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Archiving yet again

You're correct that archiving for the sake of other editors' convenience isn't mandatory. User talks that are 250 sections long are, however, annoying to other editors, and in your recent time here you've annoyed a lot of people already with other behaviors. Your choice whether you'd like to continue to annoy other editors or maybe consider whether playing nice is a good idea in general. Personally I try to avoid being intentionally annoying, figuring that my unintentionally annoying behaviors are enough to ask others to put up with, because there comes a point at which other editors decide someone is more trouble than they're worth. Valereee (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it feel free to do it on this page. I personally like the convenience of being able to ctrl-f on a single webpage so don’t have the motivation. Thanks

Jack4576 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of No Mafia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No Mafia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Mafia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

– bradv 02:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this, won't be contributing to the discussion as I'm topic banned. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Balthazar.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:Balthazar.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kafeneion

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kafeneion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ahoj Ashu (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing part of an ongoing discussion at an unblock request

Hey, Jack, don't remove stuff from an ongoing discussion of an unblock request. Other admins need to see the full discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

OK Jack4576 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Kafeneion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kafeneion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafeneion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Valereee (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Apollo Inn

Hello, Jack4576, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username SamHolt6, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Apollo Inn, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Inn.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SamHolt6}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

SamHolt6 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:SamHolt6, My comments will not be welcome as I am topic-banned from AfD and so cannot contribute to that discussion.

I wish you had raised this issues on the article's talk page, or here with me on my page prior to nomination, I think it would have been a better approach. You would have had the opportunity to see that I've already written a source analysis on the Talk Page showing that both the sources are compliant with WP:AUD, WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, and hence WP:GNG. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What are the reviews 'local' to @SamHolt6:? Local to 'Australia'? Local to 'Victoria'?

Is our nation or our State a tiny country town? Is anything within either of those jurisdictions of ~5m+ people 'local' to you?

I understand we Australians look pretty quaint and provincial to some in the northern hemisphere; but I assure you our major news publications are circulated to more people than my two outback neighbours Gladys and Bruce.

Give me a break. I'm really tired of this nonsense. Australian editors simply must be allowed to rely on major Australian news publications to write articles about Australian subjects. I would have thought that to be pretty blooming obvious, and pretty within the confines of common sense. No wonder this site has NPOV issues galore.

Can't imagine the situation is any better for other small nations around the world. At least Australia gets away with a modicum of content on this website; given we usually get a look-in attendant to being a fellow member of the Anglosphere. Must be truly awful trying to be an editor from any other countries; it'd be an unending frustration dealing with the dismissing of national and regional newspapers as 'local'. (and I bet my bottom dollar there would be plenty of examples of it happening too if one was to look into it). Really makes you think. Jack4576 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Valereee

(Reply to this comment, from Valereee)

Dear User:Valereee

I had other editors in mind, but your comments are indeed an example, so please allow me this comment in reply. The Age reporting on a Melbourne restaurant is not local coverage. The West Australian reporting on a Western Australian restaurant is not local coverage. PerthNow reporting on a Perth restaurant is not local coverage. The Herald Sun reporting on a restaurant in the State of Victoria is not local coverage. The Sydney Morning Herald reporting on a Sydney restaurant is not local coverage.

Local coverage is about the scope of a publication’s audience, and is purposed at excluding small and irrelevant community newsletters. All of those news publications are major, nationally significant syndicated publications with attendantly large audiences. They are plainly and obviously not excluded by WP:AUD or we are left with the frankly absurd result that no business in Western Australia can have an entry unless it has the blessing of having been noticed by a newspaper in a another state. Reducto ad absurdem.

Secondly, you acknowledge that the SMH reporting on a perth restaurant isn’t local. Of course I agree, but what’s your basis for asserting that? What is stopping other editors from saying that because the restaurant is in Australia, the SMH is a local source for Australian restaurants?

And before you discount that suggestion as absurd, frankly, it’s pretty similar to a boundary drawing exercise that regards the -foremost- major news publication in a state of 7m+ people, and city of 5m+ as a ‘local’ source for anything occurring within that state or city. There is no principled reason for using the boundaries of a State or major city as a basis for the nexus of what is and isn’t local.

The Age is circulated to far more people than my outback neighbours Gladys and Bruce. It is manifestly absurd to be calling it a ‘local’ source, in any context. It is indeed a little insulting as a Victorian to have my state’s oldest and most well-established paper described as a mere ‘local’ publication.

By the way, that paper is headquartered in Melbourne CBD, right nearby Southern Cross station. Perhaps the solution to determining what’s ‘local’ is to exclude its reporting on anything within a 100m radius of its headquarters? Would that satisfy you ? Why not go for that 100m radius instead of legal boundary of a major capital city, or indeed state or national border? What the heck does ‘local’ mean anyway ?

From yours truly, a humble, provincial, local antipodean Jack4576 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the policy is purposed at excluding small and irrelevant community newsletters? That is not my understanding. And I think you're misinterpreting AUD. It's not just about size. Size is only a factor. If the Dayton Daily News covers a Cincinnati restaurant, maybe. The two cities are 40 miles apart; it's maybe evidence that we should be keeping an eye on that restaurant? Not sure I'm convinced. If the Portsmouth Daily Times covers a Cincinnati restaurant, meh. Portsmouth is 3 hours away, but the PDT is tiny and their lifestyles editor may have simply travelled to Cinci recently for a funeral, had a good meal, and had a column to fill. But if the Cleveland Plain Dealer covers a Cincinnati restaurant, that's evidence of notability. The two cities are a 4-hour drive apart and the PD is a major newspaper. They're covering a Cincinnati restaurant because they believe that restaurant is notable.

Jack, I get it that you disagree with most editors about what constitutes (or should constitute) local coverage, and I'm not going to try to convince you to change your opinion. What I am going to do is try to persuade you to accept that your opinion differs from most other editors, and that if you want to be less frustrated, you should stop trying to create articles outside of that framework. If you want to try to work on changing policy, go for it. But working outside of currently-accepted policy is unfortunately going to be frustrating.

You asked for my opinion re: restaurants and local coverage: Sources report on restaurants they think their target audience would be interested in. If most of that target audience is in Perth, a Perth restaurant is local coverage; a restaurant Melbourne or Sydney is not. And the opposite is true: when SMH or The Age cover a Perth restaurant, they are telling their target audience that the restaurant is at minimum worth a visit if they're in the area. They may even be telling them it's worth a trip. That's because it's a notable restaurant. When only Perth sources covers a Perth restaurant, it may only mean, "Here's what I'm filling my column with this week." If it means more than that -- if the restaurant is actually notable -- someone somewhere else will also cover it. When we see only coverage by such sources, we detect a pattern: no outside coverage. Again, you asked for my opinion. Valereee (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at the active talk page discussion occurring at WP:NORG. It does -not- look like the incumbent consensus is what you have articulated here.

You’re the one who is misinterpreting WP:AUD. You’re the one that needs to accept that your opinions are against consensus. I am creating articles within the framework, and your conflation of the notability guidelines with significance guidelines, and incorrect understanding of the WP:AUD guideline; is getting in the way of my attempts to create articles within Wikipedia’s framework of consensus.

I am going to continue creating articles on the basis that The Age and Herald Sun are not a local source for restaurants in Melbourne, and The West Australian and PerthNow are not local sources for restaurants in Perth. If you take issue with this, please raise it at ANI or in an AfC and I will be happy to follow consensus if the consensus opinion is the one that you’ve articulated. But from the above discussion I suspect that isn’t going to be the result

Where are Perth restaurants supposed to get their coverage other than The West Australian and PerthNow. The eastern states ? Frankly that’s unworkable. But thank you for stating your views so clearly.

User:Huggums537 this is an example of what i’m talking about. Jack4576 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Which discussion at NORG are you referencing? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Under the heading ‘Does AUD overreach?’ Jack4576 (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See also the talk page regarding secondary sources currently occurring at the NOTABILITY talk page for an indirectly related discussion Jack4576 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

On a (very quick, I've subscribed to both and will try to catch up) skim what I'm seeing is the normal lengthy back-and-forth between editors who agree with current interpretation and those who don't. Realize that there are large numbers of editors who won't bother to comment unless there's either

an RfC for a change in policy/interpretation of policy or
a rewording of policy text

Many of those who want a policy/interpretation of policy change are likely to join the argument at the talk, many of those who don't won't bother on the principle that it's a waste of time. That's true for any discussion of policy/interpretation of policy change, because change needs consensus. Many if not most will not comment until some actual change is attempted via rewording policy or opening an RfC. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What i’ve articulated isn’t a change, it is the incumbent interpretation of WP:AUD; as can be seen in the discussion of that thread. Jack4576 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want to continue creating articles on the basis that The Age and Herald Sun are not a local source for restaurants in Melbourne, and The West Australian and PerthNow are not local sources for restaurants in Perth, that's cool. You'd said Frankly, its driving me a bit mental, as it de-facto is resulting in me being unable to write about most Australian subjects. Its incredibly demotivating and really driving up my frustrating with trying to contribute meaningfully to this encyclopedia...I am really beginning to reach my limit here with the approach of editors refusing to take Australian sources into account. I was just responding to your frustration: put up with the frustration, or change your behavior. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I know it would be cool. Because it would be following consensus, so obviously it’d be cool.

But what would not be cool, would be for you to continue ignoring the incumbent consensus that such sources are not considered ‘local’ sources. That would be WP:IDHT

You are the one you needs to change the behaviour, and I shouldn’t have to be putting up with this IDHT-caused frustration from other editors ignoring well-established sourcing policy. It is not appropriate for editors to be imposing a novel and bizarre interpretation of WP:AUD without having raised it with the community first. Jack4576 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The only editors in that thread that follow your interpretation are Nythar and JoelleJay. Everyone else is of the view that such sources would not and should not be regarded as local. Both of those editors display in their comments views on sourcing requirement policy that are out of step with the consensus view of the community.

As Blueboar states: "We really were thinking of small town papers when we first crafted AUD". As Smokeyjoe states: "Reading again, the post semicolon clause of that third sentence, it implies that a statewide newspaper is not a local newspaper." Other editors in the thread such as Huggums point to the cascading issues that regarding a statewide newspaper as 'local' would cause.

Additionally, the existing state of many New York and London restaurant pages shows that the incumbent practice on Wikipedia is that major-city newspapers are non-local sources for the purpose of GNG coverage.

As Horse Eye's Back noted, the two interpretations are diametrically opposed; and it may be the case that an RfC is needed to resolve this. Especially if certain editors continue this IDHT reading of WP:AUD.

I would like to request of you to please refrain in future from asserting a policy position that major city newspapers are 'local' sources for businesses within their primary jurisdiction; at least until you obtain community consensus first that such a view is how we should interpret WP:AUD. Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Jess Lemon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jess Lemon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Lemon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

WWGB (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think its a little sexist to dismiss profiles in WHO, New Idea, and Herald Sun as 'tabloid puff pieces'; when they're just examples of regular media profiles and reporting in some of Australia's most popular tabloid publications aimed at a primarily female audience. They're not 'puff pieces' and are independent of the subject. Calling article's 'puff' on the mere basis that they're tabloid creates systemic coverage issues.

I also think you're conflating notability standards for significance standards. This article clearly passes GNG as they've received lengthy specific coverage across multiple Australian publications; which are all referenced. Yet your reasons for claiming the subject is not 'notable' does not draw upon any sourcing issues, and instead says "nothing notable in the article". The content of the WP article does not go to notability. It goes to significance, a separate issue. WP:CIR.

Whilst your nomination is problematic for policy reasons, and so is quite disappointing, I won't be contributing to that discussion as I'm TBANNed from AFD. Go well. Jack4576 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

(replying to this comment addressed in my direction) It is indeed, (albeit I assume unintentionally from User:WWGB), a sexist opinion User:Nythar; and I will not refrain from civilly calling out editors that dismiss detailed tabloid sources as "puff pieces" as a grounds to dismiss their coverage entirely. It is shaky reasoning that worsens the systematically sexist bias in our site's coverage. Tabloid media is as legitimate a form of media as the sports section, which I note, gets readily accepted as an article source on this site when an article is a fully-focused profile on a person. (Real mystery as to why). You need to stop conflating civil disagreement with personal accusations. Do better. Jack4576 (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of No Mafia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on No Mafia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2A00:23EE:1998:5351:C42D:25FF:FEC5:F44E (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate speedy deletion nomination.

WP:G4 excludes "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"

The page has been #1 substantially redrafted, and #2 the deletion reason of promotional language no longer applies, as the promotional language issues have been addressed.

User:LibStar is this an ip-edit from you ? The edit history matches with some of your editorial interests. If so, please refrain in future from inappropriate speedy deletions for good-faith efforts at re-drafting articles to address editorial concerns. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:1998:5351:C42D:25FF:FEC5:F44E Jack4576 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not LibStar. I'm a longtime anon editor who often works on new pages and anti-vandalism. May I ask, why didn't you make these changes during the AFD? The article was deleted only 3 hours before you reposted it.

I respectfully disagree about the redraft, it's still pretty promotional. But we'll let an admin judge. 2A00:23EE:1998:5351:C42D:25FF:FEC5:F44E (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know.

I didn't make these changes during the AfD because I was working on other pages. I noticed the deletion recently, which was an outcome I found surprising given the multiple lengthy WP:AUD sources.

I don't think the re-draft looks promotional. It includes plenty of aspects that come out of negative reviews of the restaurant. The facts that have been included in the prose are also pretty different.

Happy to let an admin judge, thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

what words should be altered to ensure that this re-draft addresses promotional concerns? Jack4576 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The tone is something to be fixed, but it's not actually grounds for deletion at AFD (and neither version comes close to blatant advertising). Deletion was on the grounds of notability. What's needed is more significant coverage from independent, reliable sources: please see WP:SIGCOV. 2A00:23EE:1998:5351:C42D:25FF:FEC5:F44E (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Deletion was not decided on the grounds of notability. Multiple of the reasons cited promotional language as the driving reason for the deletion call.

The votes claiming WP:AUD are invalid as they ignore consensus on how the WP:AUD and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are to be interpreted.

Regarding the notability/sourcing issue:

The article has multiple lengthy reviews from Sydney Morning Herald, a national source; and The West Australia, a state-wide source.

The article does not have sourcing-related notability issues. It additionally doesn't have issues with independent, reliable sourcing issues. The Sydney Morning Herald and West Australian are clearly independent reliable sources; and we also clearly have significant coverage here as the reviews are lengthy and on any fair reading compliant with the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS policy.

This is plenty enough for most restaurants, and there is zero reason why we should make an exception to ignore those sources only in relation to No Mafia. Jack4576 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What steps can be taken to address the tone issues; what in particular do you think has an inappropriate tone? Jack4576 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not me, I never edit with another account or IP. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to know. Thank you for clarifying. I noticed a commonality in school & bilateral relation articles among other minor similarities. Jack4576 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use File:TrumpvBiden2024 screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading File:TrumpvBiden2024 screenshot.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aswan Reid

A tag has been placed on Aswan Reid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No indication of importance. No notability for child actor who just made their acting debut in an upcoming film.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lapadite (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Aswan Reid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aswan Reid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aswan Reid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Lapadite (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Helpful link

I just noticed that the closing of this archived discussion gives specific details about what is and is not currently allowed on your block which most likely supersedes whatever topic ban you previously had since they are not currently listed at WP:RESTRICT while the result of this discussion is. This should help you hold people to consensus regarding what your restrictions are supposed to be about if it ever comes up. Huggums537 (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a large relief. Good to be reminded that 'any and all deletion discussions' wasn't a part of the ban.

Regardless, I'll be erring on the side of caution. Appreciate this Huggums. Jack4576 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Hey Jack, I appreciate your contributions at Ben Roberts-Smith. I can tell you care a lot about the topic of Australian law and that you're here to build an encyclopedia, despite our different interpretation of policy. That said, I think there is a colorable argument that your conduct at the RfC is in BLUDGEON territory at this point. I see that you've already caught a block, and I would hate to see someone bring this to ANI. I think it would be good to take a step back from the RfC (particularly since you agree that the result is likely SNOW) and move on to something else.

Again, thanks for your work on Australian law topics on Wikipedia. If you ever want the perspective of a non-Australian lawyer on an Australian law topic, please feel free to reach out to me. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

My most recent comments have simply been replies to comments directly addressing me. Replies to comments directly addressed are not bludgeon. I've not replied to any comments that aren't directly addressed at me since the bludgeoning issue was first raised; however, there haven't been many of them. You'll notice that I didn't reply to the Horse's Eye Back which wasn't directly addressed at me.

Additionally, I myself called for a SNOW. I'm not attempting to bludgeon a result. Thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you did bludgeon, just that other users might argue that you did and persuade others at ANI. I pinged the opener and Horse's Eye Back to see if they're okay to close the RfC as SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, noted. appreciate your message, thanks Jack4576 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pop Mart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Apollo Inn logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Apollo Inn logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Navy Joan Roberts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Navy Joan Roberts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Joan Roberts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, User:Objective3000 please don't cast aspersions. The page wasn't created for the purpose of embarrassing Hunter or Joe Biden. I don't think her life is embarrassing.

The story surrounding her treatment by the presidential family, has led her to be the subject of considerable media reporting particularly surrounding the circumstances of her life and family, including her knowledge and experience of being a presidential family member. The relatively unusual circumstances of her life have led her to be the subject of multiple length articles, including op-eds, media profiles, political reporting, and partisan coverage.

Part of the motivation for making the article is that due to the length and breadth of the coverage surrounding her, I thought it quite clear that she passed GNG and thought it would be inevitable an article would end up being made about her as a result during this presidential election cycle. As I saw that likely to be the case, I wanted to ensure that its first draft would be a fair, and non-disparaging article regarding both her and her family; for other editors to build upon and protect from the (inevitable) vandalism I expect this page will probably receive next election cycle.

I can see the argument regarding WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG; personally I disagree due to the length and detail of the coverage surrounding Navy but I won't be participating in the AfD discussion so my opinion is a moot point.

I'd ask you to withdraw the accusation that this article meets WP:G10 though, I think that is quite a hyperbolic charge. It was not created to disparage anybody, and I don't think either the way it was drafted or the language that was chosen reads that way. To be clear, I don't think the fact of an out-of-wedlock birth is shameful to anyone, or something that anybody should be ashamed of. However, the newsworthiness of the US President's personal life is pretty hard to deny, given the lengthy media attention this has received so far.

That newsworthiness also makes me of the opinion that its hyperbolic to claim that WP:A7... This isn't an ordinary person, isn't an ordinary family, and isn't an ordinary news story. The circumstances of the Presidents family are a significant topic to many people right around the world. However I can see that reasonable minds may differ on that point.

Regardless, please withdraw your accusation that the page was created for malicious purposes. As you can see from my edit history, I regularly write articles on a wide variety of topics and I just happened to notice while reading about this story in the NYT the other day that Navy Joan Roberts didn't yet have an article. That's all there was to it. I attempted to be fair in the manner in which I canvassed her life on the Wiki. You'll note that I've avoided any partisan/muckraking quotes or extensively referencing Fox News etcetera excepting for the barest of mentions noting that the coverage itself has existed.

Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast and painful. I'm so sorry this happened to you, Jack. Be glad you live very far away from American politics. I've heard for years that Australian politics is supposed to the the world's most ruthless (especially within your parties), but there's a profoundly sick nastiness that's entered U.S. politics in the last 15 years.

Try not to take this personally (Ok, that's a pretty unreasonable suggestion but I had to make it). This has more to do with:

A polarized American environment when a big chunk of our editors are Americans
- An expectation that people will write attack articles and the tendency to jump to conclusions as to motivativations
Increased sensitivity to child abusers, child abuse, and inappropriate articles and images
- This article was not at all the same but a lot of people have a hair trigger for any child-related material now
- You may have not been aware of this but issue been a running theme on our drama boards for months now, and with good reason. You don't even want to look at some stuff posted to Commons. I think increased intolerance for inappropriate editing and content is good after many years of looking the other way. Just the same, this very different article pushed buttons.
Now combine these 2 trends together and the hive mind (including me) goes to at least DEFCON 3 right away.

In retrospect, I'm glad this went down so fast rather getting drawn out for days and turning into a Wikipedia bone-gnawing contest.

I, too, thought the article should be deleted, but I sympathize with what you were trying to do. I so appreciate what you continue doing around Wikipedia. Remember 95+% of us are just trying to build an encyclopaedia, not play contact sports; sometimes that gets overlooked if you spend too much time in Wikipedia space.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S., they should probably add something about editing Wikipedia at https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/americas/united-states-america

Also, I wrote some comments about your editing at the AfD but they posted just as the AfD closed. As a result, they were moved to the AfD talk page.

- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What is frustrating is that there are few conservative sources left at WP:RSP,. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you A. B.. You make a great example of an editor on this site and know that I appreciate your words and take them seriously.

I think you're right about Aus Politics being brutal. We have the most disciplined parties on earth if you're curious. Nobody crosses the floor here compared to other major democracies; which I think is indicative of a lot.

I'm glad that the USA is regaining some normalcy the last 3 years, hope things can stay that way.

Really sad to hear about that issue occurring at Commons. It does add some context to be made aware of that. Jack4576 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

When the article subject is about a minor who has not made anything remarkable, the bar for creating an article should be set really high. In another case I could interpret SIGCOV less strictly. Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes significant coverage. Even if the article content adheres to NPOV and is written in neutral and dispassionate tone, the mere existence of an article may cause harm to the subject.

I don't believe G10 applies for the reasons you explained, but I'm – like A. B. – glad the matter was closed quickly. All the best, Politrukki (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I think what makes her remarkable is her treatment by a powerful family. I don't see people as having to 'do' or 'make' anything to be worthy of note. Her treatment by the Biden family has really captured the public imagination.

I do think there are some parallels with the public's fascination with princess Diana. In some ways her story is relatable, and her rejection by a powerful, privileged family is a strong narrative. I'm unsurprised its led her to the front page of the NYT and other outlets.

I don't agree with the harm to the subject issue. If she was an otherwise unknown figure, sure. That horse has bolted though. She's already had her name and story covered in detail and very prominently. However, I think harm to a minor is a very important concern that other editors are right to be wary of.

I don't agree with SIGCOV being variable in the way you describe, but I understand your view.

Thanks for your comment and thoughts. Reasonable minds may differ. I'm glad the community is vigilant about material that harms children, even if I disagree with their assessment about what is likely to cause harm. Jack4576 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jack4576,

I can see why you created this article if there is a lot of gossip going on online with political chatter. And you had some good, solid sources. But Wikipedia is very protective of minors, especially of notable people. So, take this as a lesson learned and continue with creating equally good articles this time for adults. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Liz, lesson learned and I'll continue to do that. Indeed this seemed like a story that had captured the public imagination and I wanted to write a fair piece based on solid sources.

An AfC might be a better approach for this sort of thing, but its not usually something I write about anyway. Appreciate your comment. Jack4576 (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Another P.S.: well-played, Jack, stepping back at the Talk:Hunter Biden RfC and letting others argue it out. There are people starting to repeat themselves and they're only going to grate and then eventually turn people against their position. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A new challenge?

Jack, you may or may not be interested in this:

This tiny article is in AfD:

Restricted military area
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restricted military area

The problem is that to expand it from a one-sentence definition would require figuring out what to do with a nebulous topic. It would be a "broad concept article".

You can see how the discussion unfolded at the AfD as some of us tried to struggle with whether and how this article could be enlarged.

One reliable editor, Visviva has now volunteered to build a usable article, possibly by looking at laws in different countries. When I heard this, I immediately thought "we have an Australian legal expert". Would you be interested? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:A. B. thanks for the suggestion. I do like reading about the law in these natsec fields. I’ll see what I can find tonight. I suspect there’ll be some stuff out there Jack4576 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I nominated this for AfD and was happy to see that you took the initiative @Jack4576. I've reversed my vote precisely because of Visviva's offer and I hope you both get the article up to snuff. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)