Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by बिनोद थारू (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 30 December 2023 (→Your edits to LGBT reproduction: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive of talk discussion:

• User talk:बिनोद थारू/1

Your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Art_Whizin

Hi, I think you may have accidentally closed this instead of !voting, as your close does not reflect the consensus and reads as a supervote, and anyway non-admins are strongly discouraged from closing any XFDs that are possibly controversial (i.e. anything where there is disagreement). Could you please revert and allow an admin to close/relist? Thank you. JoelleJay (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You also need to revert your closure of New Relic, as you are not allowed to close AFDs you participated in and the presence of a delete !vote removes the nominator's ability to withdraw. JoelleJay (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand and take in mind your message. As well as abstaining from closing in the future. My tool doesn't have a reopen, so I am not able to unfortunately . but keep was snowball so this is only a bureaucratic mishap. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You can go into the history and revert your close. Even if it's a snowball, you are not allowed to override other delete !votes by withdrawing the nomination. JoelleJay (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting of AfD's

Hi. I noticed you relisted two articles for deletion today including one which had only keep votes. The relisting comment for Red Light Management was "there not been clear justification that no source brought forward validate CORP". That suggests to me you are trying to second-guess what seems to be a pretty clear consensus, rather than trying to generate greater discussion or a more clear consensus as described at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Relisting_AfDs

May I suggest that as a relatively new user, you might want to participate in more deletion discussions before taking on tasks like closing or relisting? Oblivy (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand and take in mind your message, abstain from close afd for the long future. As for the discussion, there was no consensus. The IP just votes "keep" and a keep voter is criticized recurringly for making impulsive votes, the vote itself being just "keep". hence a relist. Argument were about COI versus sources meeting the threshold of NCORP. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not accurate, is it? There were three registered accounts that voted and just one IP editor.

I guess the relisted AfD will proceed but I appreciate your intention to refrain from closing tasks for the foreseeable future, I've been participating in AfD discussions for a long time and even I don't feel like I'm ready to do closures (although I'm sometimes tempted). Oblivy (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

NICOR Closure

Hi, sorry to return to your talk page again but as the AfD is closed this seems to be the right place.
When I asked about WP:BEFORE searches, I was suggesting you might not have done enough work to form an opinion on non-notability before bringing an AfD, The Loyola cite was on the 1st page of Google Scholar results for Nicor Energy, strongly suggesting your before searches were inadequate (and if not, you could have said why you considered and rejected the sources).
I appreciate you took my comment seriously, but based on the discussions above with me and with @JoelleJay, I was surprised to see you using closing tools again. I think the proper response was to add a comment withdrawing the AfD, and then let an admin or more experienced user consider the close. Oblivy (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I just clicked close for convenience, no meaningful action was taken like when I closed before keep due to consensus or relist or mistakenly with one other delete vote. Sorry again, those discussion did not cross my mind in this situation. I was under the idea of avoiding WP:BUREAUCRACY. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There is some value to non-admin closures where you want to withdraw and there's nothing but keep votes. But considering that you have already been challenged about your use of closing tools, not just by me, but also by another editor much more experienced than me, perhaps you should consider disabling those tools altogether. Oblivy (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Added comment out https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A6_%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82/common.js&diff=prev&oldid=1191021156 बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative

FYI - After the PROD was reverted I started an AfD. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Copying/ within Misplaced Pages requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from Power-to-heat into Power-to-X. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Merged बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:बिनोद थारू

User:बिनोद थारू, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:बिनोद थारू (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:बिनोद थारू during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sastra Robotics proposed deletion

Shouldn't there be a poll for proposed deletions? The article has some independent references, but for me the bigger issue is notability. There are lots of robotics startups, it's not clear why this one should be in an encyclopedia. Peter.corke (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I nominate this article for PROD because it has only routine coverage in English and Malayalam (south india language).

WP:NORG says you need high-quality sources and coverage beyond promotional posts or routine statements like acquisition or stock price update. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

PROD tags can be reverted just if one person removes it from the page. Afterwards, you can add a AfD tag which starts the deletion discussion. PROD and AFD are different things. PROD can be placed as to not overload the AFD discussions and maintenance tags (like the no notability tag) can be placed as to not overload the admins who delete the PRODded articles after exactly a week. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"Merging"

Hi, I notice in your recent edits multiple occasions where you redirect ann article to another one, marking it as a "merge", but actually not adding anything to the merge target (and several times actually removing content. In at least one case (Economics and Human Biology) you basically deleted this article on a notable journal. This is all very misleading, please stop and correct this. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Article was unsourced and there were no other sources on the internet for that topic. Therefore, the best decision is to redirect. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern, especially about journals and I will stopped to redirect journals and towns starting from now. बिनोद थारू (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagging articles

Hello again, I just wanted to check if you meant to use Template:Primary sources on Jahrome Brown? The reason I ask is that to the best of my knowledge, that particular template is for articles that use multiple primary sources whereas that article is a stub article about a living person with subject-specific notability because he plays in a professional sports league that currently uses one primary source and not multiple primary sources. With some of these athlete biographies its pretty much a given that they'll start off as a single source stub and editors will expand the article incrementally as his career progresses. Do you mind either removing the primary sources tag and adding a more relevant tag or perhaps just reverting your edit? I'll leave it to your editorial judgement, thanks again.𝔓𝔓 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have watched multiple RfC and RfA and conclude WP:OR must be upheld at all times and that WP:SNG are there as a heuristic tool to keep new pages and close deletion discussions quickly. An article cannot be built on primary sources or original research. Database entries like match results may be built on primary sources since it doesn't require OR, but significant coverage in secondary sources is needed at least somewhere in the article (to meet WP:N and WP:NOT). बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure if that's the case with biographical articles about living subjects. In this instance the single primary source was clearly there just to verify that this individual plays rugby professionally. Plus Template:Primary sources is for pages made from multiple primary sources. Surely, Template:One source or no tag at all would have been the more appropriate course of action in this scenario?𝔓𝔓 16:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

One source since there is only one source. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So do you agree that you place the Template:Primary sources tag in error?𝔓𝔓 16:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No since the article was only based on primary sources, and adding a secondary source would help it meet WP:N. If no secondary source exist, then an ideal world would want merging all of the stubs into a list or other wider article, which this time will have stand-alone notability. The one-source template would've been another valid template to add. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you want to help improve this encyclopaedia by developing the page so that it meets WP:Notability? 𝔓𝔓 17:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not up to one person to work on everything बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your talk page edit summaries

Would you care to elaborate on this talk page edit summary? Specifically, I'd like to know which part of my comment you believe was 'misinformation'? my understanding of WP:AFD is that its purpose is to discuss whether enough independent reliable sources exist to warrant a standalone article. Could you please explain how I misinformed you?𝔓𝔓 16:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I remove misinformed comments (like the assumption of being allowed to strike opposing votes in deletion discussion) because such statements can spread rumors. If there is what looks like a bad vote to you in AfD then you can comment underneath it. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way was it a vote?𝔓𝔓 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Vote to delete बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a ballot.𝔓𝔓 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is similar to some kinds of ballots (ex. those in Russia). बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining this to me. Do you mind showing me the part of WP:AFD where it says that deletion discussions are essentially a ballot with the outcome decided by the number of keep/delete votes?𝔓𝔓 16:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The result is decided at the discretion of the admin closer. This decision, especially if taken without much thought, results like a strawpoll. On the opposite end of the scale, a more precise closer might weigh in the different arguments in the discussion and make conscious effort to ignore the quantity of votes weighing in on each side. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So it's not a ballot? I'm confused. 𝔓𝔓 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I have seen over the past 2 months of being here, I would say 80% of discussions are identical to ballots (they follow the rule: greater number of votes = result) बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So you're basing that on your first-hand experience?𝔓𝔓 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

One can verify the actual percentage of poll-like results by tracking down the last few discussions and counting the votes. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

How are they votes if it's not a ballot? 𝔓𝔓 17:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a ballot in most practical cases. In other cases, the close is usually recorded as no consensus, which is a default to keep. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a discussion about the availibility of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and casting aspersions about the page's creators and subsequent editors isn't something that we do at WP:AFD. 𝔓𝔓 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Restoring deleted talk page messages

Hey there, would you mind restoring the messages that I left for you earlier on this talk page? You know, the ones that you labelled as 'libel' and 'misinformation' in your edit summaries. This time, could you please keep them live for at least seven days so that other editors have a chance to read them? Thanks. 𝔓𝔓 17:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an example of following misinformation. You were following a message someone had left on my talk page, when in reality there is no rule mandating to "keep messages for a week". You can read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But why delete the message in the first place? I was only trying to help you. 𝔓𝔓 17:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am deleting talk page messages which have the potential to spread rumors (misinformation), like the idea of being able to strike other's votes because of their argument's lack of merit, or needing to keep talk page messages for a week which is not required by Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But surely if what you're saying isn't relevant to the discussion then it's better if the comment is struck through? 𝔓𝔓 17:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edits to LGBT reproduction

Hi, you deleted my previous talk page message where I asked you to clarify your contributions to LGBT reproduction where you wrote, "many gay transgender men choose to freeze their eggs before transitioning" I found your edit a bit confusing and I find terms like trans men instead of trans people somewhat insensitive and ill-informed. Also? Since when do males produce eggs? Surely one has to ovulate to produce an egg? Or did I miss a biology lesson?𝔓𝔓 18:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I brought all of that in from a previous article during the merger. If you don't like trans men, then you can replace with trans people but that is what I found in the listed sources (ctrl+f) and also the revert undid formatting changes back to a version of the article that had incorrect structure. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please slow down

बिनोद थारू, please slow down and reflect on what administrators and other editors are telling you, both here and in deletion discussions. I detect frustration and, increasingly, exasperation with your work here on Misplaced Pages, particularly with regards to deletion. Some of your PRODs and AfDs have merit but too many don’t. If you don’t have a success ratio of at least 80%, you should not be initiating deletions. Normally only more experienced editors initiate deletions.

Some of your comments and edit summaries are also grating on your colleagues’ nerves as they’re informing you.

If you continue on your present course, I expect one of these other exasperated editors will probably report you at WP:ANI within the next week.

Regards, —A. B. 18:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)