User talk:Thenightaway

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Thenightaway,

It was pointed out in an AFD discussion you started that you don't use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.) and you are not taking the important step of notifying the page creator of the deletion discussion. This is not fair to content creators who work to establish and improve articles. They have a right to participate in a discussion of whether articles or drafts they created are deleted.

I really encourage you to give Twinkle a try as it is used by most page patrollers and many administrators. Twinkle will set up deletion discussion pages for you, allow you to tag articles, welcome new editors, report vandals, post warnings to editors that are troublesome, it even will maintain deletion logs for you that are helpful to review. Twinkle basically remembers all of the templates you might need to use so you don't have to search for them. Just remember to set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then when you tag a page for deletion, Twinkle will post a notice on your behalf on the article creator's User talk page. If you don't want to use Twinkle, then please take the time to write a message yourself, informing the page creator of the AFD discussion. But it's easier to let Twinkle do this for you. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)T

Edward de Bono

You have removed a lot of sourced content based on your opinion that it is "all poorly sourced puffery". Can you explain why what you have done is not simply vandalism? NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993–2016 military reforms in Azerbaijan

I was one of the people wanting this deleted, but I also wanted to save a copy so that I could work through it later for any useful data. I missed my chance - overlooked it during the holidays. In accordance with WP:REFUND, can you point me to any last-copy-accessible at mirror sites, or dump a copy in my userspace? Kind regards and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sheik Mansour

You are presumably unaware of the current Man City legal action against the PL involving the material referenced in the Times/Guardian which was obtained from the convicted extortionist Rui Pinto and exposed as wholly fabricated by CAS in 2022. Human Rights Watch & Amnesty have said absolutely nothing about Sheikh Mansour and the publicity stunt by the anonymous "Ukrainian activist" reported by Guardian is simply another example of the anti-Arab narrative created by US commercial rivals which has now been introduced into Wikipedia. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Thenightaway,

to attract the opinion of other experienced editors, I have now mentioned the Controversy section dispute at WP:BLPN; I hope this helps in finding a consensus.

I understand that you are currently not interested in discussing the matter further and/or have already said anything you could say about it, but of course this is not about an editor "getting their way" and the focus is on which version is more encyclopedic/neutral. So I hope you agree we need at least one more opinion.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

KChukudi

I think I got them all. What a headache. All AI added citations appear to be bogus, that is, completely unrelated to whatever they were supposed to be verifying. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

DSA Los Angeles Censure of Nithya Raman

Hi, I saw you removed my edit due to the perceived lack of reliable sources. It came straight from the DSA-Los Angeles website, I am confused about what would be a better source. Would you be able to expand on your reasoning? Removing material entirely without attempting to find a better source is frustrating. Redpandarich (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to National Socialist Council of Nagaland seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please pay attention to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT and summarise the source accurately. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Thenightaway. Thank you for your work on Persistence studies. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An expertly crafted article. I've linked it from one other page, but integrating it further within the project would be great.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues on People's Park article

Hi Thenightaway, I've restored my edits that you reverted on the overview of People's Park (Berkeley). While your edit message says "stick to the sources" regarding the description of opponents of the development project as a "small contingent," but the sources attribute that claim to the University of California, whose perspective should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. And while you claimed to be restoring "rs language about backing by all the relevant local officials and two-thirds of students," the specific language in question, "unanimous backing" and "nearly two-thirds," does not appear in cited sources. Instead, the LA Times article that is the source for the student support figure says, "campus officials say the majority of students... supported [the development] by a margin of 62% to 27%." Rounding up 62% to "nearly two-thirds" is editorializing.

In light of there being an active discussion on the article's talk page about neutrality issues, I'd appreciate you discussing there before making further reverts. Graue (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletions on political pages in San Francisco.

This is consistent behavior on multiple political pages, including Connie Chan and Aaron Peskin. Please follow the guidelines (see Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight). Californiaknowshowtoparty (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally deleted significant information from Hillary Ronen page. Has been restored. Californiaknowshowtoparty (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation

Hi @Thenightaway

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)