User talk:11WB: Difference between revisions

The Civility Barnstar

We may not always agree on everything, but we don’t need to. What matters is that you have the right attitude most of the time when dealing with differing opinions. I know that I did not get AP even after your original seeming vouch of support, which I appreciate, but I’ll try again one day and I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this. You’re contributions to Wikipedia are excellent. The resulting discussions were honestly not really about your AP request at all, but rather about whether all content should be cited at the moment it’s published. On reflection, I should have exited that discussion sooner. That discussion has caused me to rethink how I approach patrolling though, and whether I should be requesting editors to cite every source. All the best! 11WB (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly care a lot about building Wikipedia, that is important, but in the interest of not rehashing any arguments already stated elsewhere, I will not further comment on the patrolling mention. Keep up the great work overall though. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not your fault that you concluded as NC, there’s a misunderstood on the WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. 🙂 ROY is WAR Talk! 01:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That close is just over a month old. Please forgive me, but I genuinely can’t remember the details of that specific AfD without reading it all again. I probably shouldn’t have taken on an NC close as a non-admin in all honesty. Thanks for letting me know about the DRV anyhow! 11WB (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 11WB. I just wanted to note that closures should go inside a thread (below the title), instead of outside. Happy editing 🙂 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm Thank you for letting me know about that. There are multiple types of discussion close templates, I usually use Template:Discussion top, which is different to Template:Archive top. I’ll try to do it correctly next time! Apologies! 11WB (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your ping at Talk:Butterfree/GA1. Are you not able to access the library at the moment due to an issue with your edit count? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 29 of Butterfree (this) does not direct me to the actual reference on The Wikipedia Library. I can confirm that I do have access to The Wikipedia Library however, including the complimentary publisher extra subscription from Newspapers.com. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB Where are you seeing that link? For me Ref 29 only has a DOI link, and a templated TWL link which sends me via the DOI to https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/1367549404047146, which seems to work correctly. I’m not seeing the link you shared here. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was fixed by @SunloungerFrog. They may be able to explain what they did and what the issue was. Here is a revision with the link I was referring to. 11WB (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The original URL was one with the ezproxy gubbins in: it worked once for me, then not. It wouldn’t have worked for regular non-TWL readers in any case. So I replaced it with a fresh journal citation using the DOI, and then the courtesy {{twlac}} link for TWL members. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. The URL you linked didn’t work for me either it was probably a temporary EZProxy one – glad everything’s resolved! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now! Thank you both! 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. thanks for the review. I just wanted to let you know the use case of nat’l biographies for a person’s significance is not applicable for BLPs. This is because they do not update with living persons as far as I can tell. For e.g. search for Keir Starmer and you’ll see that he doesn’t come up, despite being the current PM. I hope you can think about this before you use it as a threshold again. Thanks! Abs145 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve completed quite a few reviews recently as there is a backlog drive in progress. I don’t know specifically which article you are referring to. If you could provide some links, that would be appreciated. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nadia Latif you can check the post on the Talk Page – you’ll be able to see the corrections / changes I’ve made and a mention of how to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies, note the source on the DNB states: ” According to DNB’s editorial standards, no living persons are included; only deceased persons are included.” see here or here. Using that as a tool to judge to if someone is significant is not applicable to BLPs. Abs145 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a review I completed almost four months ago. That draft has also been declined since then. I suggest you seek assistance from WP:AFCHELP. Whilst you are welcome to leave messages on editor talk pages, in this case it needs to be understood that as a significant period of time has passed, this could be considered inappropriate. Please use the relevant noticeboard in future. All the best! 11WB (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well next time you do reviews – you cannot apply the rule that a person is only significant (while living) by checking if they are in a dictionary of deceased individuals. You should know this for future reviews as it sounds like you’ve likely been conducting reviews improperly. Best of luck! Abs145 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not include the individual’s DOB. This would be a good thing to include. The reader isn’t to know due to this. I also didn’t apply the ODNB as a criteria for inclusion. I quoted WP:ANYBIO in my comment. This individual has not won any awards, and as a result is not notable. I appreciate your guidance, however my review was correct on this occasion. If you disagree and would like other opinions, the correct venue is AFCHELP. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]