User talk:Yellowbear48

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Hi. Please stop putting flag icons in infoboxes, and linking countries/nationalities (WP:OVERLINK). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but an icon is not a link. I really don't think an icon next to nationality is harmful, especially with abandoned profiles that lack any color. Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style disagrees with you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I've been building up abandoned profiles, literally rescuing subjects, updating entire profiles and adding massives numbers of references, and you are here complaining about flag icons? This is weird. Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the great things you're doing. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very plain white. People use mobile devices. I would have preferred to not use the icon. Again, the editors adding it had me beat there. Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read the list of exceptions. With athletes, flags appear to be acceptable. As an amateur editor, I agree with this exception. I would not use the flag icon with, say, Frank Kozik. Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Examples of acceptable exceptions include infoboxes for military conflicts, infoboxes for international competitions such as the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Games, or to list the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Yu Koshikawa and note that I left the flag in the part about his playing for the national team, a dedicated section where national representation plays a part. Linking nationalities etc. is always overlinking. Having a Japanese flag icon for the Japanese team he played for is overkill--and there it's very clear that there is no national representation. If you say you prefer not to use the icon, keep feeling that way: I agree. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Mireya Luis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mireya_Luis

Those references are mine. I added a flag icon. Is that really objectionable? I think it is a small detail. Previously I did not add icons, but I thought about it and honestly... I realized those with the icons had me beat. It looks better. Yellowbear48 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual is generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Which means that you don't add flag icon in infoboxes.

Also, Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=. per Manual MOS:INFONAT

Please revert all your wrong edits. Ojvolleyball (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will revert those back. And I will also leave the many, many volleyball profiles that are abandoned and with no citations abandoned. I'm going to stop my work on Wikipedia. I'm just not motivated anymore. Yellowbear48 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yosenqui García

Hello Yellowbear48,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Yosenqui García for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Justi yaya 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adam Johnson (volleyball) has been accepted

Adam Johnson (volleyball), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OABOT

Hello! I've noticed you're very active reformatting citations. Have you tried the oabot tool? I'd love to hear about your experience doing some edits with it. There are new suggested edits in the queue. Nemo 21:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiea Leone

You are probably wasting your time working on Sophia Leone. Adding more poor quality sources is not making the article any less likely to be deleted. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for personal attacks. An administrator can decide if the article in question should be deleted. Generally, it is acceptable to work on a page before a decision is made. Yellowbear48 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack in any way. I'm really just trying to save you some time and frustration. Admins don't decide if articles are deleted, they decide if there is consensus among other editors to delete an article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am wary of deleting articles about people who have recently died and have had an impact in the popular culture. Honestly, Sophia Leone is at bare minimum on the fence in terms of notability. It can go either way based on the whims of a person or group. Yellowbear48 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Leone

Hello, Yellowbear48,

I am a frequent closer of AFD discussions so I was looking over this one but because of when the 7 day period of discussion is up, I likely will not be closing this discussion unless it is relisted. I saw your comments and I really thought they were from a new editor so I was surprised to see how long you have been editing and how many edits you have made. I don't know if you have participated in many AFD discussions but the arguments that carry they day aren't about what occupation the article subject had but are based in reliable sources and policy. You mentioned there were sources in your remarks but you should have provided links to a few great sources so that other editors could see what you were talking about. If there 3 or 4 articles providing SIGCOV from reliable sources, I think at least some of these editors would have advocating Keep this article. What doesn't matter is the number of followers or subscribers a person has, most people know that you can buy followers or friends for a measly few hundred dollars. I've seen Instagram accounts with 10,000 followers who've never posted even ONE message. They are obviously spam followers. So they are not considered when editors who frequent AFDs assess notability.

You said you were okay with whatever happens to this article but it's perfectly okay for you to fight for an article you believe in. You don't have to be okay with deletion. But deletion discussions are determined by consensus of editors so it's important to put forward a persuasive argument for Keeping an article which is made more challenging in this case by the subject's profession and biases that people might have. If this happens to you in the future, just focus on the sources and policy-based arguments rather than making any personal appeals. These are just suggestions from me because I review probably a hundred AFDs every day and I've seen discussions swing from Delete to Keep back to Delete depending on the arguments put forward. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Sophia's Twitter and a couple of her posts last month have 1 million views, and all of her tweets seem to have massive engagement. I agree that some accounts buy followers, but it's very clear her followers are (largely) real and engaged.

I also added numerous sources and fixed others. She is covered by Parade Magazine, Complex, and has an entire article by People (a pretty good indicator of notability with regard to celebrities). As someone else pointed out, if Sophia's page is deleted, many thousands of others could be deleted. Thus, deleting her page would obviously be an arbitrary position, objectively. Now, it might not be framed as such, and perhaps weight would be given to the numerous pro-delete editors, but it is clear there are literally thousands of pages of much less notable people on Wikipedia.

If this article is deleted, I want to be clear that I oppose that based on the new coverage Sophia has received since some of the votes were cast, including from People magazine, and as another editor has argued. However, I will not complain if we are overruled on that, as even I will admit Sophia is a borderline case. I would object personally, however, to the arbitrary nature of this. What others decide to do they decide to do, and I will not have an axe to grind going further. Yellowbear48 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen a case where the subject was very notable, like the artist Tristan Eaton, that had votes cast to Delete simply because the article was at the time poorly sourced. Even when the NYT was used once or twice, the same people refused to change their votes. I believe people have the tendency to double and triple down on their decisions due to ego, though there may be exceptions (as you have observed). I believe this case is a bit more complicated due to involving an adult worker, and almost nobody wants to be publicly seen as advocating for that. Yellowbear48 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is possible for celebrities to amplify their own posts that have real engagement with bots, similar to athletes using performance-enhancing drugs. However, as with athletes, such attempts without any real substance beneath them would appear somewhat transparent. I bring this up because from a theoretical standpoint, it is possible for celebrities to have both real engagement and botted activity. I should note, though, that Sophia's social media activity is mentioned in her news coverage, not solely by editors. Yellowbear48 (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read your post and I appreciate the feedback. I am not familiar with the AfD procedures because it is my nature to preserve history. I thus find it weird how some apparently have a fixation with removing potentially valuable historical content (Sophia's death as a pornstar as an example). I have added maybe a half-dozen or more pages, mainly of athletes, on Wikipedia, and I keep in mind what future generations might dig up deep into the recesses of history. After all, history is continually lost. I thus see Wikipedia as a part of this archiving. I believe Sophia Leone has earned her spot with a quarter of a million visits to her Wikipedia page in the last week or so, in addition to all of the other points. Yellowbear48 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]