User talk:Dylnuge

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place
Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Glen Waverley line
Hi @Dylnuge. I was willing to fix the issues that you pointed out in the article, but I've been busy for the last few hours and was going to get it tonight. Is there anyway to undo the fail to allow me to fix the mistakes and then continue the review? HoHo3143 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @HoHo3143. Unfortunately, I think the sourcing issues are too pervasive to be fixable as part of the GAN review. I spot checked seven different statements from different parts of the article and every single one of these had significant issues. This is the kind of problem I'd consider tagging with a  at the top of the article. I think it would be useful to find sources that cover Melbourne rail lines and Glen Waverley in depth and use those to rebuild much of the article. I did check on Discord with @Premeditated Chaos who was kind enough to review my sourcing examination and weigh in with a second opinion; she confirmed that the sourcing issues were a valid and significant concern.
 * I'd be happy to keep chatting about how to improve the article but I don't think it's ready for GAN at this time. I'm really sorry it turned out this way and I hope my review comments are helpful in preparing the article for a future nomination. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for the additional feedback @Dylnuge. I've added fixing the article to my to do list and will get to it soon. Not your fault that the review has failed but I have taken this feedback on for future articles. Just a bit disheartening that this is the third time its happened...
 * It'll be fine though as I'll renominate them soon. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * HoHo3143, if this is the third time your articles are being failed on sourcing issues, I would take a step back and review your writing process. A few instances of source-text issues is human error - everyone is liable to do it. People overextend what the source says, accidentally cite the wrong thing, misunderstand the source, the article gets edited out of sync with the source, whatever. But three GA fails on this basis says that not only is it an ongoing issue, it's an ongoing issue you aren't conscious of, which is problematic.
 * When I glanced at the review at Dylnuge's request, I saw what seemed to be a lot of sourcing used kind of as a guess, like, "I'm talking about electrification, here's a source about electrification" even when the source doesn't cover the actual facts it's being cited to support. The disability one he pointed out is the same - it's a source that talks about disability, but does not say that all stations are built in compliance with the 1992 DDA. Maps can't be used to confirm dates unless they say, textually, that such and such happened on such and such day. Otherwise all the map tells us is that X thing was on a map by Y date, which is different than knowing that X opened on Y date.
 * Can you see why these concerns are a serious issue? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Premeditated Chaos. I do understand the issue. The problem has been that I completed and nominated these articles awhile ago and continued working on more, with very little of them being reviewed. Now that they are being reviewed, I'm learning of the issues. Some articles have been successful with minimal issues and others not so much (usually the ones from earlier on). These issues are important and I'm making sure not to commit them in the articles that I am currently working on for GA status. So I have been learning about the issues throughout the process and am making sure to prevent them from occurring in future articles. Thank you for your help. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, with the issues being this pervasive, I would recommend removing all your remaining nominations and going through them one by one to confirm the sourcing is appropriate, and only renominate when you are confident that all the sourcing issues have been addressed. Leaving articles up (or saying that you will "renominate them soon") that you know have serious problems with the sourcing is really unfair to reviewers, who are operating under the expectation that articles have been written in a properly policy-compliant way. Don't force people to continue to fail your work. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Premeditated Chaos ok I've decided what I'll do. Tonight (when I have some extra time) I will go through and fix all the currently nominated articles. For the ones I don't finish by tonight, I'll take them down and renominate them once the issues have been fixed. The recent ones are much better than the first, so they will take less time to fix. HoHo3143 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @HoHo3143 I'm sorry for the stress this must be causing and appreciate your work on these articles. Please do let me know if there's any questions I can answer; I'd be happy to help you with sourcing, prose, or anything else. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 02:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry @Dylnuge its not your fault (and @Premeditated Chaos). I appreciate the feedback you have provided especially as you have both been polite about giving it. If I need any help I'll make sure to reach out. HoHo3143 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Autonomous (novel)
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move for Twitter article

 * Simple Attention.svg Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

X User Count in the Infobox
This is a company report, not just a mention made by the CEO somewhere, which was the criticism on the talk page. Go check the Threads' Wikipedia page; there is a user count in the infobox that cites Zuck’s Threads post (not even a third-party source). However, that does not seem to bother you; I wonder why. When we cite Musk’s X posts, the response is like, “The world is going to end any minute!”

Please leave your leftist policies behind and be impartial while editing Wikipedia. Mstf221 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is casting aspersions. Bring it to the article talk page if you want to change the consensus. It's unlikely it will given that the source you're linking, to say nothing of reliability, attributes a non-independent claim, literally says "It’s interesting to note their reports are contradicting, as other stats showing that usage on the app is stalling. [sic]", and spends the majority of the article describing how the reported figures seem inconsistent.
 * In other words, it has all the same concerns that were raised with the original sources: the user count claims are not independently sourced and widely disputed by independent reporting, including generally in the very articles being sourced to support them.
 * This isn't about US politics and you won't get anywhere grinding an axe against imagined political enemies. I recommend taking some time to review the sourcing policy and understand the concerns other editors and I have; attack comments like this, in my personal experience, are rarely a convincing argument regardless of one's political convictions. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The irregularities in the Threads page are notably missing from your reply (you seem to be happy with them). Don't play the victim; we both know what is going on. But yeah, you play to the audience. You know that woke editors are the majority on Wikipedia. You want me to bring everything to the talk page, which "you" control, and tolerate the irregularities that you like (like the ones on the Threads page).
 * I don't have time to seek justice from the woke jury. So, I'm letting you have it. Mstf221 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever even edited the Threads page? I'm not a fan of it there either. It's always awkward to rely on primary claims by an organization instead of independent reporting, and I dislike it generally. I'm far more concerned when independent reporting is consistently questioning the claims though, which is what's happening with X.
 * I don't control talk pages, and it's not my fault that casting aspersions and making personal attacks against other editors tends not to convince them of much. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)