use 'new section' please.

Archives

On 21 February 2021 you made a comment at Talk:Antimatter weapon about refocusing the article on fiction. I just removed most of the real-life content as original research, which was largely unreferenced and for which I could not find a single reliable source. You can improve the finctional content now, provided you do not make an indiscriminate WP:IPC list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Law of New Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arlo Barnes,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

We also have a live cleanup drive, if you'd like to participate, and a mailing list if you'd like to be notified of upcoming edit drives.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West

The Wikipedia users of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are invited to an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. There is no obligation to participate and all guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Circle-A on flag of England.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Circle-A on flag of England.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dollfie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - on my talk page, you said, "You reverted my edit with the message "A talk page is not a blog or social media site for nonsense", but I don't see what's nonsensical about indicating a topic-relevant primary source about which secondary sources suitable for mainspace might be found. Isn't that what talk pages are useful for?"

I reverted this edit because you did not follow WP:TALK guidelines to propose a specific improvement to the article, with a WP:RS source. The rule is "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article."

1. there was no proposal for improvement offered
2. there was no WP:RS source provided
3. the commercial website you provided suggests you believe it is a reliable source of information about adaptogens (it is not; it's spam nonsense) and is WP:PROMO, i.e., the main intent of the website is to sell products. Zefr (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's a reliable source or I would have put it in the article. But then, I think an 'adaptogen' is a meaningless woo-marketing buzzword, and the site is an example of a particular bee buzzing that tune. The fact that a famous person is involved is really the only reason I think it is a notable development as far as the subject of the article is concerned. Arlo James Barnes 03:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree. Your response indicates you saw the conspicuous woo nature of the website, but your comment about Anderson isn't a basis for notability. I don't think there's any scientific training in her career history that would indicate she knows anything about adaptogens or nootropics (or why they're actually not effective), other than being gullible and selfish enough to use the terms for deceiving her fans and customers to market her products. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1854 in Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alma River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:San Francisco, New Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Dollfie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Black Santa, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opportunism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Consequence and Circumstance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of governors of new Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cinema of New Mexico, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited XMASS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dewar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "San Francisco".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mill Creek (Philadelphia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overbrook, Pennsylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pokelego999 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lack of reliable citations that establish why this subject is notable. I can see some potential here, but there are no sources in the article actively demonstrating that. Please expand this with reliable sources on topics such as its history, influence, etc to show how notability is established.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cinema of New Mexico and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West

We will host an online meet for Wikipedia users from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 12, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. We will have reports from WikiConference North America 2024. We hope to organize a North American Hub to support local activities. Anyone interested in the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitaion list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arlo Barnes. Thank you for your work on Ravalet. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please mention the former name in the target article, with a good ref

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Issues in retirement security, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Sentencing enhancement has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 26 § Sentencing enhancement until a consensus is reached. Lenny Marks (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The {{annotated link}} template gives almost universally terrible results, because short descriptions and see also section annotations have completely unrelated and largely contradictory criteria. A good short description is almost always a bad see-also annotation, and vice versa. Trying to use a tool designed for one purpose for a different purpose for which it is completely unsuited is a distracting waste of time for yourself, other editors, and readers. If you want to add annotations to see also sections, please write your own manual annotations which are appropriate and relevant to the context. There is no consensus for the mass adoption of this template, and doing so in a bot-like fashion (cf. WP:MEATBOT) as you have been recently doing is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. –jacobolus (t) 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'no consensus for mass adoption'^[a] is different from being 'contrary to consensus' and from 'caus[ing] errors an attentive human would not make', so I don't see how the bot page is relevant. Using a first-approximation label for a link doesn't prevent editors (myself included) from replacing it with a better manual string, but does reduce the number of unlabelled links in see-also sections. It also reveals articles that should have a shortdesc but don't yet. Please don't assert that my editing activities waste my own time, which after all can only be spent by myself; however, I would be happy to work with specific feedback like you provided in the edit summary for your reverts/revisions at geodetic astronomy and Transverse Mercator projection. Arlo James Barnes 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlabeled links are completely fine. There is no consensus that see also links should be annotated. Readers can usually figure out what a link is about from the title, and where they can't, clicking links is easy and free. In my opinion bad annotations are significantly worse than no annotations at all.

The reason to not have either bots or human "meatbots" making mass changes is that such changes are onerous to revert and extremely disruptive to have edit wars about. See Wikipedia:Fait accompli. If you want to make large-scale changes, it should not be done without editor consensus.

Nobody cares if you want to add annotated links on an article you worked on extensively. It's easy to revert to un-annotated links, manually write annotations, etc. on that one page, it's easy to discuss on the local talk page to determine local consensus, and uninvolved editors will defer to your judgment if you worked on the page heavily.

But adding these links to large numbers of pages in a drive-by fashion is inappropriate and disruptive. You should seek project-wide consensus before undertaking such mass-editing activities; if the community were to decide that such annotated links should be widely added, it would be easy to get an actual bot to do it, but I expect you'll get considerable pushback from people who think it's a bad idea. That is, I do not expect community consensus would support such edits. –jacobolus (t) 21:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bots can't exercise judgement or make exceptions in the moment, so I doubt I would pursue that course. I'm also wary of the admittedly fuzzy line between stewardship and WP:OWNership, but I'll cool it with the template additions until such time that the details of your concerns are clearer to me. Do you know of some talk archives which might help provide context? Arlo James Barnes 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell you are just blanket adding annotations to all of the links in the see also sections of many particular pages, even when the majority of those annotations are not useful in context. I'm not seeing evidence of "judgment" or "exceptions": I haven't seen any cases where you e.g. wrote half of the annotations manually and used the template only for annotations which were appropriate. In general, the annotations resulting from your edits were, in every one of the handful of pages I looked at, generally unhelpful for readers. I only reverted a few of these on pages I'm otherwise watching, because doing mass reversion of someone's changes across many pages is more than I have time or energy for, but I would generally support the reversion of all such edits.

I'm not sure what you mean about stewardship/ownership: we're talking about one editor (you) making mass edits across many articles in a drive-by fashion, and another editor (me) disputing that this has enough project-scale consensus to be a supportable activity. –jacobolus (t) 23:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello Arlo and Jacobolus, just going to offer an uninvolved comment from a friendly talk page watcher. Arlo is a good faith editor who I have done some collaboration with, and I found that they are very easy to work together with, and have a block free history. Never any drama! No offense Jacobolus, but I feel like you are coming on a bit strong here. I reviewed some of Arlo's edits regarding their use of annotated links, and although I understand that you disagree with some, it seems to me that many are actually helpful for the readership of the encyclopedia - especially those who might be unfamiliar with a topic in the See also sections. It doesn't really matter if Arlo has not edited an article where they added an annotated link, they are free to do that (I think that's what they mean by stewardship v. ownership) but that's just a hunch. Anyways, it's almost Thanksgiving here in the U.S., so I am wishing you both a happy rest of your day, and I'm thankful that such an amazing resource as Wikipedia exists in the world. Cheers to you both. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt Arlo Barnes's good faith, and hope it doesn't seem otherwise.

I generally come fairly strong at bot-like editing that I disagree with. My overall opinion is that bots and bot-like human editing are only moderately useful in aggregate and in particular cases often harmful. I have had multiple bad experiences in the past with bot-like human editors who created literally thousands of hours of clean-up for others and then refused to help with it or even acknowledge the problem, which leads me to err on the side of telling people to stop making large-scale edits and seek consensus first, instead of just going ahead with them and waiting for complaints later.

In this particular case, the harm of useless annotations in each single case is relatively minor, but the benefit of even the most excellent possible annotations is also quite minor (I'm frankly not too enthusiastic about the concept of see also sections at all). If a human is going to be looking through see also sections, I'd much prefer they take the time to skim the article for redundant links, think through whether everything in the see also section is really necessary to include at all, and then consider what type of annotation would be beneficial for a reader. In my opinion a single thorough and careful manual effort like that is of much better use to the project than a couple dozen semi-automated edits wrapping all of the links in {{annotated link}}. But frankly almost any other kind of productive editing activity would be of still higher value than even that. –jacobolus (t) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacobolus, it sounds like we are seeing this thru different lenses. If I'm not mistaken, it seems you are seeing this thru the lens of an editor and your preferred behavior thereof, and I am seeing this thru the lens of what would be useful to readers of the encyclopedia (not necessarily editors). Diversity is necessity I guess; I don't really see any harm done by Arlo. Anyways, happy thanksgiving to you. If you celebrate I wish you and yours a wonderful feast. Netherzone (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that adding annotations drawn short descriptions in a semi-automated way across a wide swath of articles is generally (mildly) harmful to readers and to the project. In my opinion short descriptions are nearly always at least somewhat confusing and typically fairly unhelpful when (mis)used in the context of see also sections. Adopting short descriptions for this additionally creates tension where editors start trying to improve their fitness for see also annotations at the expense of making them worse for their original purpose. –jacobolus (t) 05:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arlo Barnes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norman Lourie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amira (software), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4D.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]