Jump to content

User talk:Chenzw/Archives/Mar 2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chenzw/Archives/Mar_2020.

Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia Foundation
This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw.



The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[change source]

chenzwbot false positive

[change source]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne&diff=next&oldid=6845204 Computer Fizz (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, I have added the edit to the bot's training dataset. Chenzw  Talk  02:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Page: Deep decision graph

[change source]

Hello Chenzw,

The page "Deep decision graph" of our colleagues from Germany was deleted (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Decision stream).

But the request itself is incorrect. According to Wikipedia rules (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - How an AfD discussion is closed): an admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. Eptalon, who voted for deletion of article "Decision stream" from beginning, according to Wikipedia rules didn't have right to close/delete the article. So, deletion of page "Decision stream" contradicts the rules of Wikipedia. This is not just formally incorrect deletion - suspicious manipulations are performed during discussion: user Macdonald-ross voted for deletion twice, deletion is supported by anonymous user from spamming server 149.56.45.234, deletion of article is initiated from the fake account "ForgotMyPW"... Due to this unacceptable situation, could you please advice who from administrators of Simple Wikipedia has prevelages to withdraw the incorrect AFD decision (Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Decision stream).

Mr Somogyi (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Zaxxon0 who asked you to delete page "Deep decision tree", is in the group voted for deletion (in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Decision stream).

Hi, please refer to the below:
  • You mentioned that the page originated from "our colleagues from Germany". Which organisation are you (and/or the authors) part of, and in what capacity are you and/or your colleagues contributing to Wikipedia? Per Wikipedia policy, all conflicts of interest must be declared by the involved editor(s).
  • What evidence do you have to support the allegation that ForgotMyPW is a "fake account"? Even if you can provide irrefutable evidence that this is a "fake account", the fact remains that other established editors have also voted in the RfD. "Fakeness" is not inheritable in this manner.
  • It is interesting that you mentioned the "suspicious manipulations" from the editors who voted for delete - I would like to point out, as an uninvolved administrator, that the RfD in question was also subjected to "suspicious manipulations" (as you put it) from editors who voted for "keep", too. There was this keep vote that was signed off by 38.133.200.29 but was actually made by 102.129.224.2 (as seen in page history). Wikipedia does not "glitch" in such a manner because the signature takes the form of the user who made the edit (in other words, what is recorded in page history). It is noteworthy that 102.129.224.2 is now part of a range block due to being an open proxy, and both IP addresses are not even in "neighboring states" - they resolve to totally different continents.
  • RfDs are closed not merely on a vote-counting basis - the final decision is a result of consensus and sound policy-based arguments (policy being Wikipedia policy). It is perfectly possible for a huge majority of ungrounded "keep" votes to be trumped by a comparatively smaller number of sound, policy-based votes for "delete".
  • In RfDs, articles are not kept/deleted on the basis of popularity. The guiding principle here is that article subjects must be notable - that is, they have received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources. For a start, the particular paper for this theory has barely any citations, suggesting that there has yet to be widespread acceptance/adoption of the algorithm in academia. The "keep" votes have not demonstrated that this requirement has been satisfied, instead alluding to arguments about supposed popularity and arguments to the effect of "I like it/it is useful to me". These are not valid policy-based votes in favour of keeping an article.
  • It is my judgement that the subject of the article, as highlighted by the editors voting for delete, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. While it may have been procedurally incorrect for Eptalon, as an editor who voted in the RfD, to also close an RfD that appeared to be controversial, the procedural error does not necessitate a reversal of the result. For the avoidance of doubt, I endorse Eptalon's closure of this RfD.
  • The deletion policy permits the deletion of articles that are "identical or similar" to pages that have already been discussed at an RfD. Note that this does not require the page title to be identical. The identity of the editor (Zaxxon0) who requested for the deletion of Deep decision tree is irrelevant.
  • Please address further appeals to Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Chenzw  Talk  14:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the detail reply, Chenzw! I see your point of view. Mr Somogyi (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avee Player

[change source]

My article Avee Player got deleted for CSD G11 why? 36.81.230.211 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. Articles about software are accepted only if they have received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Chenzw  Talk  13:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FFT bin interpolation in Avee Player? i searched this on Google 36.81.230.211 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Avee Player

[change source]

Can you create protect this page, it's always re-created then deleted. thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzwbot problem

[change source]

I got an immediate Chenzwbot auto-revert on an edit to Trans woman...the only explanation being a number. The mention that trans women dislike their sexual orientation being perceived by others based on their biological bodies needs a mention of the converse dislike by homosexual biological women (attracted to female bodies) of demands that they see those with male genitalia as potential partners. Do you want me to reword things,or cite an source,or does the article only allow one side of the argument to be presented?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bot reverts vandalism by evaluating characteristics of edits such as (but not including) length, word frequencies, proportion of characters, account age. It is not the job of the bot (nor was it designed to) make any judgement on content, unlike what you appear to be insinuating in "only allow one side of the argument to be presented". Statistically speaking, it is more likely for edits by anonymous editors using those kinds of words to commit vandalism, so that was unfortunately taken into consideration in the bot's algorithm. I have added your edit to the bot's training database to minimise future false positives, but also encourage you to create an account. From an editorial point of view, you might want to consider citing a source, too (though it's not mandatory). Chenzw  Talk  03:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why don't we use cluebotNG here? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thegooduser. Arthurfan828 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the 3 previous deletions for the same reason, you might consider protecting Denuvo from creation. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Izno:en:Denuvo is a valid article, someone might want to create here. I guess?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: Yes, it is a valid article, but the reason it is being created here is because editors can't vandalize the page there. It should be semi'd here or any higher level below full protection I might suggest. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: We had some productive IP users here, so we tend not to protect. I will try to create a stub to prevent recreation.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is thanks! and it was Hian who joined not you (Chenzw), sorry for confusion --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[change source]

17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

ChenwzBot accident

[change source]

An anonymous user made 2 edits on the page Yesterday and ChenwzBot reverted the edit, while it was actually helpful. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 17:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]