User talk:Spartathenian

Welcome

Welcome!(We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Spartathenian, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Help desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! ScrabbleTiles (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've edited as a guest and wondered if membership would give me more scope. Looks okay so far. Spartathenian (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Spartathenian! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Hyphen/dash conversion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by 03:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criteria

The speedy deletion criteria is for blatant hoaxes, not for probable or possible hoaxes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, though this does seem blatant to me. Apologies if I'm wrong, but I've since noticed that the category had already been deleted earlier today, so this one is a reinstatement by the same person. Spartathenian (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nicias

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nicias you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 05:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1998 in Cyprus

As you may know, the status and control of Cyprus has been contested and controversial for many years now. The Proposed Deletion (Prod) system is only available for non-controversial topics. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see some controversial deletion discussions, please see WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian, that's fair comment. I wasn't aware of that limitation on PROD, so thanks for letting me know. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You learn something new every day, no matter how hard you try." - Tony Adams Bearian (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on improving USS Gyatt and your monumental contribuitions to Wikipedia in less than a month! GGOTCC (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GGOTCC. Much appreciated. All the best. Spartathenian (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokad

Forgive me if this comes off as negative criticism. That certainly is not my intent. Rather, I'm trying to demonstrate a different way of looking at this. The AfD as it was standing when you relisted it had nobody that wasn't a meatpuppet, sockpuppet, or the original conflict of interest author arguing in favor of keeping. The keep arguments from these accounts had also been effectively refuted. There's really no basis on which to continue the AfD. I'm sure you understand that AfD is not a vote. But it's quite clear that the author of the article, who is now blocked, called in a lot of meat/sockpuppets to try to force the issue. It's quite telling to look at Talk:Lokad. While that is not a reason to delete, it does call into question the veracity of what these meat/sockpuppets say. Similar concerns were raised in the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Nagarkar which you relisted.

More abstractly, there's a larger issue that is bad and continues to get worse over time. As participation at Wikipedia continues to wane, the numbers of people who contribute to AfD also continues to wane. Relisting cases that shouldn't have been relisted generates ever increasing backlogs that are difficult to stay ahead of. We also have an ever decreasing number of administrators to handle this issue. This particular AfD was relisted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 21. More than 40% of the AfDs on that log have been relisted. 20% have been relisted multiple times. Kicking the can down the road doesn't solve this problem.

I'm just suggesting you be more careful with your relistings. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hammersoft. Nothing to forgive as I welcome feedback. I'm still on the learning curve, and any advice is useful.

I think I may have misunderstood the problems at Lakad because I wasn't really aware that someone has been gaming the system, so to speak. I thought if I relisted, I should try and make sure the closing admin was aware of problems in the discussion. With Ram Nagarkar, it was the AFD nominator who was blocked, but it's essentially the same issue, of course.

To help with the backlog problem, maybe we should amend WP:RELIST so that the AFD cannot be relisted until, say, 14 days after the last post in the discussion? I don't know if that would be feasible, but such a measure may be necessary to reduce the percentages in the current day's log.

Thanks for getting in touch. I do appreciate your help, and I'll give more thought to motives in future AFDs—there are obviously certain people using the site who have much bigger fish to fry than the fly-by vandal or the well-fed troll. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

Mz7 (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mz7. I'll do some reading to make sure I fully understand the process. I like the eye-icon! Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AWB edit summaries

Hi. Your AWB edits unlinking countries all use the same edit summary – unlinking Scotland (and other countries) per WP:GEOLINK; plus copyediting and general fixes – regardless of the country (e.g. 17:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, Pink Bee, but I'm working through a huge Scottish category, so the vast majority of links have been to Scotland itself. I began throwing additional countries into the algorithm as I noticed them in the Scottish articles. I think I should probably now change the summary from "Scotland (and other countries)" to "major countries (primarily Scotland)".

Thanks for your feedback which gave me food for thought. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pink Bee, I don't think there is a need to specify a primary country, so I'm changing the summary to "unlinking major countries per WP:GEOLINK and MOS:OVERLINK; plus copyediting and general fixes". This should cover the bases as AWB automatically picks up a lot of extras.

Thanks again for your help. Best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]