Cannabis Indica

Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reply
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 27: Line 27:
:I'll take that as a compliment. I've read a lot around here, but some people (see the thread above) think I'm too new. I guess I'm in the awkward haircut phase of not having a 10 year old account yet. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood#top|talk]]) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:I'll take that as a compliment. I've read a lot around here, but some people (see the thread above) think I'm too new. I guess I'm in the awkward haircut phase of not having a 10 year old account yet. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood#top|talk]]) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
::Ok, but is that a no? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
::Ok, but is that a no? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't have a previous account on this wiki, but I have edited another wiki for a few years. Some of the policies here I'm learning to navigate, but the actual mechanics I'm moderately experienced with. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood#top|talk]]) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


== [[Zoosadism]] revert ==
== [[Zoosadism]] revert ==

Revision as of 14:21, 24 April 2024

AFDs

Hello, Big Money Threepwood,

I'm going to say this as politely as I can but you are giving low quality, drive-by votes in the AFDs you participate in. I can tell you've read the deletion nomination statement but it is not apparent that you have even read the article must less conducted a thorough assessment of quality of the sources in the article and I can tell you have never tried to look for additional sources to help establish notability. In your deletion nomination when you start an AFD discussion, you apparently forgo the required step of WP:BEFORE which requires the nominator to look for those additional sources and to provide a careful assessment of the sources that exist.

If you do not want to put in the time and effort to participate thoughtfully in an AFD deletion discussion, then please find other activities on the project to take on. Useless comments like "Delete per nom" or "Fails GNG" with no elaboration is just a sign that you are not taking the process seriously and most closers just ignore these remarks. You have now been participating in AFDs for a couple of weeks and I don't see any improvement in your contributions. Please raise the quality of your AFD participation or go do one of the million of other activities available to editors on this enormous project of ours. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Can you provide some independent reliable in depth sources on minor locations listed in the book of mormon? Thank you. I could only find Sunday school sermons and the occasional wp:fringe Atlantis theories. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would you be willing to link me towards the policy that says we can't say delete per nom? I didn't make that phrase up, I saw it on hundreds of AFDs. Are you notifying lots of people delete per nom isn't ok? Should I? . Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you personally deleted *most* of the articles I nominated. I'd like to see some diffs of what you consider edits that may have been disruptive, if you have some. I didn't know that "outline" articles were a thing, so I did flub by nominating one. Thanks again for your follow up to these questions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's a lot to unpack on this.
  • Liz works very regularly at AfD and closes many AfDs, so it's completely irrelevant whether she's the one who deleted ones you nominated or !voted in.
  • 'Per nom' is as she says pretty useless in most discussions (not just AfDs). Almost no discussion here is actually a vote (we often refer to it as a not-vote or !vote), it's a discussion, and your policy arguments matter more than your !vote. If you can't at least restate in your own words what you're dittoing, many closers may discount your contribution as a drive-by, especially when you're also voting Delete in nearly every discussion. No, there's no policy on that, although there is an essay at WP:PERNOMINATOR. You actually kind of make yourself look clueless when you vote like that.
  • It doesn't matter that you've seen other people do that at other AfDs. Those people may not be contributing thoughtfully, either. No, you shouldn't notify lots of other people who do this; you don't have anywhere near the experience to assess that behavior yet.
In general, it's best for newer editors to edit in article space, watch & listen in Wikipedia space. Participating in Wikipedia space at your level of experience is not likely to be very productive for Wikipedia and is likely to be actively counterproductive for you. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, how many years of experience is usual for participating in AFDs? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no level of experience necessary, and you're welcome to participate there. Liz is just asking you to participate more thoughtfully, and I'm saying that you might want to read there (or in any other Wikipedia space, such as noticeboards) for a while until you see what kinds of votes are considered productive. Valereee (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee@Liz Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waters of Mormon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Book of Mormon places I see no evidence they did their due diligence or in fact if they are clear about the criteria for AfD or list articles. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually new to list articles. I imagined the list would need to be of a notable thing, backed by what Wikipedia calls reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any books about lists of places in the book of mormon that were not owned bybthe church. If you have some sources, that os great Doug! Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precocious

Hi, do you have previous or alternate accounts? You don't seem like a new editor. ~Awilley (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a compliment. I've read a lot around here, but some people (see the thread above) think I'm too new. I guess I'm in the awkward haircut phase of not having a 10 year old account yet. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but is that a no? Doug Weller talk 07:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a previous account on this wiki, but I have edited another wiki for a few years. Some of the policies here I'm learning to navigate, but the actual mechanics I'm moderately experienced with. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoosadism revert

Can you help me understand why this is whitewashing? Subanark (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed pain to harm. Cigarette smoke is harmful, but not what people who enjoy hurting animals are into. Zoosadism is about pain, not harm. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, would the terminology used in Sexual sadism disorder extreme "pain, suffering or humiliation" be ok? Are the other edits I made acceptable? If not, can we take this to the page's talk page? Subanark (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply