User talk:Bradv/Archive 15
 | 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Message from Dmehus
Hi Bradv, I noticed something unusual while updating redirect page Jimmy Pattison to a disambiguation page. Apparently, it was formerly the page for the Canadian billionaire businessman and philanthropist, Jim Pattison, except a cut-and-paste move was done that subverted the normal page move process. I think the disambiguation page I created was useful because Jimmy Pattison arguably refers to the businessman equally, if not more than, the American baseball player (Jimmy Pattison (baseball)), but now the Talk page for Jimmy Pattison refers to the Jim Pattison. Is there a manual clean-up you can do to transfer that Talk page to Jim Pattison? Also, if you can mark Jimmy Pattison as reviewed, that'd be great. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Reply I added an even more friendly version of the level 1 notice on the user's Talk page, as I thought that might be helpful. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Reply I should add that I think the move was ultimately constructive and that it went 13 years without notice, and, by extension, opposition. So, I think the move was probably a good one, just as creating the disambiguation page was. It was constructive; now we just need cleanup on the Talk page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I've removed the old history from the page as it was a copyright violation. The rest of your concerns seem to have been addressed, but feel free to open a new RM discussion if needed. I have no opinion on the names of the articles. – bradv🍁 13:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Okay, sounds good, thanks, Bradv. I actually had to update quite a few pages that were linking to Jimmy Pattison, the redirect to Jim Pattison, so there may be support for making that the primary title. However, I'm not too concerned about. The only thing I was concerned about was transferring the Talk page from Jimmy Pattison to Jim Pattison. Do you think that's worth it? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I've removed the old history from the page as it was a copyright violation. The rest of your concerns seem to have been addressed, but feel free to open a new RM discussion if needed. I have no opinion on the names of the articles. – bradv🍁 13:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Message from Dmehus
Hi Brad,
I noticed that we've PCock and I have reverted vandalism to User:Joseph A. Spadaro's excellent editing re: Tate murders. Do we need to go through a formal process to block the IP user, who is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 20:17, October 11, 2019 (UTC)
- The IP has made two edits, and received a warning. This is the appropriate response. – bradv🍁 13:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Okay, thanks for clarifying. :) Doug Mehus (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Superlinks script
I have recently changed my skin to Timeless. I saw the note at the bottom of the documentation that it only works in the Vector skin, but I would like it to work in the skin that I'm currently using. Can you make that happen? Interstellarity (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interstellarity, at this point Superlinks only works with the Vector skin, and it looks like it will require a major overhaul to make it work with Timeless. The structure of the page differs significantly between skins. – bradv🍁 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Would the task be difficult to do? Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interstellarity, I will look into it. I have some other improvements I want to make to the script first, but I'll explore adding support for Timeless. For now I'd recommend sticking to Vector is you want to use Superlinks. – bradv🍁 20:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, I'll hold off on switching to Timeless and continue to use Vector in the mean time. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interstellarity, I will look into it. I have some other improvements I want to make to the script first, but I'll explore adding support for Timeless. For now I'd recommend sticking to Vector is you want to use Superlinks. – bradv🍁 20:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Would the task be difficult to do? Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Rafael Rebolo Lopez rewritten
In 2016 you proposed deletion of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Rebolo_López , I am a new editor and I have been working on it, in Spanish and English. Could you take a look at it? Toandael49 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Toandanel49, I proposed it be deleted because it had no sources. It does now. Is there something specific you want my input on? – bradv🍁 02:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so you know
[1] As a big advocate of people who are not arbitrators stepping up in the next election, I figure you're pretty much in the wheelhouse of what I'd consider a candidate with potential: has some experience with the committee but is not a current or former arbitrator. This isn't an endorsement for anything other than encouraging you and others who have never sat on the committee to throw your hats in. We need some fresh faces. Good luck. Risker (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Risker, thank you for that, and please keep doing what you're doing. We definitely have some seats to fill, and I hope you keep encouraging people to volunteer. As for me, I'm not sure whether I can better serve the community as a clerk or as an arb, so that is something I will think about. While you're here, I did not mean to try to answer for the arbs in that thread. I try not to comment on matters pertaining to arbitration other than to answer policy questions or advise people on the correct process or venue. I acknowledge that I deviated slightly from that in my comments today, and I apologize if that has been unproductive. – bradv🍁 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Heh. I think you're just trying to help. It is in the nature of the project (and perhaps also the people who choose to participate in the project) that there's a fair amount of blurring of boundaries except in very, very narrow areas (e.g., CU/OS, or restricting access to deleted content). Risker (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this block
For 2.53.154.103 (talk · contribs), where you said in summary 'block evasion'. Block evasion by whom? Given the block summary in the block of 176.221.108.218 (talk · contribs) and the other IPs I mentioned at User_talk:JzG#Thanks, perhaps we need a sock puppet by master category? And/or a WP:SPI (but I have no experience starting one...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I'd rather not be explicit about who I think that is, but it sounds like you already know. You're welcome to open an SPI if you see more, but IPs are dynamic so it wouldn't make sense to tag/categorize them (i.e. once they get a new IP the previous IP can be used by other people). – bradv🍁 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- What about JolantaAJ (talk · contribs) which considering the focus and language of edits (criticism of IPN/Polish sources) is a pretty obvious WP:DUCK case (and I will ping User:SQL who blocked it with a note I don't fully understand but that mentions checkuser?). Should we (I?) take this to SPI? In all honestly, despite many years here I never had to deal with what appears to be an indef banned editor using a proxy/sock army, so I am really unsure how to proceed or even where to report suspicious IPs/likely socks? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, yes, I believe that to be the same user. If you see others feel free to start an SPI, but this one is already blocked so there would be no point. – bradv🍁 03:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was considering this in the aspect of said user's declaration (on Wikimedia Commons) that he is appealing his indef block. If there is evidence of socking, violating the ban, than this is probably a sort of evidence that ArbCom should be aware of. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to organize it somewhere, so that anyone considering an appeal, including future ArbComs in years to come which may not be familiar with the details, can consider this aspect? Also, what are our policies on interacting with suspected socks/proxies of indef banned editors? Ex. if they make a vote, edit, comment, should they be ignored (WP:DENY), reported, reverted..? PS. I am also curious re why you didn't want to name said editor. Is there any policy related to WP:OUTING, harassment or such I should be aware? Is suggesting that account x is a likely proxy of indef banned account b sommethign that violates some of our policies and could get one into trouble? PPS. I just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz, but I have no idea how to add any evidence of suspicious accounts there, and is this even allowed for anyone to do so? It seems someone just tried to add content there but was reverted with no follow up as far as I can tell? [2] This is all very confusing from my 'newbie' perspective to SPI stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I think Arbcom would be aware of these sockpuppets in the case of an ban appeal, as they all have access to the private checkuser data. I'm happy to help with any future reports of further sockpuppetry - either through an SPI, or here on my talk page. There is no restriction on mentioning your suspicions - the only rule is that checkusers are not permitted to publish connections between account names and IP addresses. – bradv🍁 06:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was considering this in the aspect of said user's declaration (on Wikimedia Commons) that he is appealing his indef block. If there is evidence of socking, violating the ban, than this is probably a sort of evidence that ArbCom should be aware of. In this case, wouldn't it make sense to organize it somewhere, so that anyone considering an appeal, including future ArbComs in years to come which may not be familiar with the details, can consider this aspect? Also, what are our policies on interacting with suspected socks/proxies of indef banned editors? Ex. if they make a vote, edit, comment, should they be ignored (WP:DENY), reported, reverted..? PS. I am also curious re why you didn't want to name said editor. Is there any policy related to WP:OUTING, harassment or such I should be aware? Is suggesting that account x is a likely proxy of indef banned account b sommethign that violates some of our policies and could get one into trouble? PPS. I just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz, but I have no idea how to add any evidence of suspicious accounts there, and is this even allowed for anyone to do so? It seems someone just tried to add content there but was reverted with no follow up as far as I can tell? [2] This is all very confusing from my 'newbie' perspective to SPI stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Piotrus, yes, I believe that to be the same user. If you see others feel free to start an SPI, but this one is already blocked so there would be no point. – bradv🍁 03:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- What about JolantaAJ (talk · contribs) which considering the focus and language of edits (criticism of IPN/Polish sources) is a pretty obvious WP:DUCK case (and I will ping User:SQL who blocked it with a note I don't fully understand but that mentions checkuser?). Should we (I?) take this to SPI? In all honestly, despite many years here I never had to deal with what appears to be an indef banned editor using a proxy/sock army, so I am really unsure how to proceed or even where to report suspicious IPs/likely socks? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I saw that you've moved this page twice back to the draftspace, and it seems the creator of the page has moved it back again. I thought I should bring it to you attention since the users has moved it back into the mainspace again. CodeLyokotalk 20:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- CodeLyoko, thanks for letting me know. I've filed a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HonorMT, and the article should probably go to AfD. I don't see much point in draftifying it a third time. – bradv🍁 21:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Effective altruism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Effective altruism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
November 2019 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Bradv,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
Copyvio diff tagging for Jo-Ann Roberts
Hi Bradv,
Can you double-check the history for Jo-Ann Roberts and ensure I tagged the appropriate editor's Talk page for the problematic copyvio == Biography == section that PKT astutely noticed?
Thanks,
- --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done. – bradv🍁 17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks! :) Doug Mehus (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you intervene over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett?
Hi Bradv,
Can you please take a moment to intervene over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett in order to de-escalate the situation? I appreciated Dennis Bratland's good faith suggestions and pointers, but I'm finding his replies to be overly bitey in assuming I've possibly read so many WP policies. I think the situation needs to be de-escalated. As you can see from the discussions, my replies have been cordial and receptive, which is what we want in editors and in editing behaviour.
Thanks,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I see no reason to get involved. By the way, here is my strategy for AfD, in three simple steps:
- Do a very thorough BEFORE search
- Write a clear nomination statement that identifies the problem with the available sources and the applicable notability guideline
- Unwatch the AfD page
- You may consider such a strategy useful, even if the only benefit is your sanity. It worked for me. – bradv🍁 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks. Yes, admittedly, my WP:BEFORE search was less thorough; I could've made my nomination statement more neutral, which Dennis (and perhaps others) likely objected to; and your last tip is a good one, so one doesn't get into back-and-forth edits. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, AfD nominations aren't supposed to be neutral - you're expected to present a case for why the article should be deleted. You're making your argument in the discussion section instead, which is quite tiresome for the other participants. – bradv🍁 23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Ah, that makes sense. Hence why added the third point, so I'd be less inclined to reply to each !vote and comment. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, AfD nominations aren't supposed to be neutral - you're expected to present a case for why the article should be deleted. You're making your argument in the discussion section instead, which is quite tiresome for the other participants. – bradv🍁 23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks. Yes, admittedly, my WP:BEFORE search was less thorough; I could've made my nomination statement more neutral, which Dennis (and perhaps others) likely objected to; and your last tip is a good one, so one doesn't get into back-and-forth edits. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 10
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (October 2019).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 10th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
Have a great November, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Bradv,
Hope you're doing well. I know you're a Clerk for ArbCom, so you may not even be able to assess the consensus on the ANI drama involving two administrators, which in itself is quite disturbing to see as I'd always thought administrators were supposed to set a model example for other editors to follow (and I realize admins are not infallible, so they can be forgiven for the occasional misstep), but the WP:ANI page is taking a really long time to load due to the length of the thread. I don't know if you can consult with other non-involved admins to assess the consensus on an accelerated basis so that that thread can be dealt with quickly? The sooner, the better, I think...
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a really contentious area with an extensive history, and fraught with tension. I recommend staying out of it if you can. I don't plan to contribute to that discussion. – bradv🍁 00:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Yeah, I didn't realize all the history. I wasn't suggesting you should get involved in the discussion or even closing yourself, but was just concerned from a page loading perspective...the length is making the page load slowly. So was just more concerned from a technical perspective. Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Bradv and Dmehus. ANI is currently at 304,000 bytes, which is not outlandish. It is sometimes only half that, but I don't think any special steps need to be taken. To get some perspective, the individual archive files of ANI are usually 800 Kbytes in size, and we don't hear people complaining about that. The archive bot takes away each old discussion from ANI after 72 hours of inactivity. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Yeah, I didn't realize all the history. I wasn't suggesting you should get involved in the discussion or even closing yourself, but was just concerned from a page loading perspective...the length is making the page load slowly. So was just more concerned from a technical perspective. Doug Mehus T·C 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Copyright question
Hi Bradv,
I was checking out something called the Page Curation Log (is that something only administrators review, or do Pending Changes reviewers review this?) and noticed an article for Angelo De Augustine. Noticing his being featured in Paste (magazine) and Vogue (magazine), it seemed like this WP:CSD#A7 tagging may have been premature. So, I contested the deletion via the artist's talk page. Since I didn't create the article, I realized I could remove the tag, which seems correct, so I did that. I also added a citation from the Irish Times, which may help this article if it goes to AfD.
So, the long way around to my question, can we still quote verbatim from an external source provided that we abide by standard copyright rules (i.e., usually no more than 10% of the work copied, quotation marks are used, and footnotes are added properly following each directly quoted passage). I've noticed some editors a bit hasty in their removal of copied content, but my thinking is, provided we follow standard rules for writing term papers, reports, and the like, and provide appropriate quotations and attribution, there should be no issue. Correct?
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, you may find WP:CFAQ useful. – bradv🍁 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks for the link. On an unrelated note, per WP:BLP, I have partially undone the edit reversion by Toa Nidhiki05 whereby the "Vaccine journal" citation did not cite the allegation stated. Indeed, Sharyl's name was only mentioned in a bibliographic citation, but the author made no mention of her in the cited article. Thus, we can't have uncited allegations on living persons, as I understand it. I've taken it to the talk page, with an RfC, and provided a friendly note to the editor, but just making you aware of it to maybe help me watch that page to make sure my edits aren't undone. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, The editor has undone my good faith, friendly note on their talk page with this diff. At any rate, we can't let that "Vaccine journal" article go back in. I'm also a bit troubled by the comments noted in the edit summary of that diff. Doug Mehus T·C 02:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I need to explain why templating the regulars is not generally something that's done. I have the ability to govern my talk page as I see fit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Toa Nidhiki05, You are welcome to undo my template notice, but try not to be so bitey in assuming I'd read that policy. You could've just reverted and said, "my talk page; my rules." That'd be fine. Nevertheless, we have an uncited allegation and a WP:BLP violation that cannot standing pending the 30 day RfC discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Toa Nidhiki05, Note WP:DTTR#AGF. Thanks! : ) Doug Mehus T·C 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I need to explain why templating the regulars is not generally something that's done. I have the ability to govern my talk page as I see fit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Brad, the editor has reverted the edit, so the uncited circular reference is back in. I'm also troubled by the edit summary provided in the reversion, as if WP:BRD applies to first-mover advantage. My understanding is that WP:BLP supercedes WP:BRD. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the "Vaccine journal" article citation. I downloaded the article using Microsoft Academic; it does not cite the given sentence. Thus, we have a WP:BLP issue. Can you intercede and remove that sentence pending another reliable source citation being found? Doug Mehus T·C 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I recommend having this discussion on the talk page of the article in question. If you need a third opinion at some point I'll be happy to help, but start out with a friendly discussion. – bradv🍁 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks, but I don't think it can wait pending outcome of the talk page. If you can have a look at the journal article in question ("Vaccine article" is the refname), it makes no mention of Sharyl Attkisson other than in the URL of a blog post in the article's bibliography. Sharyl Attkisson herself is not mentioned in the article. At the very least, the sentence needs to be refactored and a new source found per WP:BLP as it cannot wait for the conclusion of the talk page discussion per other issues in the article. Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've commented at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. – bradv🍁 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thank you. Faith in Wikipedia status = maintained. It's good to remove the problematic material until appropriate sourcing (ideally at least two, given the controversial nature, I'd argue) can be found. I appreciate the reversion and won't bug you anymore here. It can be discussed on the talk page. Doug Mehus T·C 03:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've commented at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. – bradv🍁 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Thanks, but I don't think it can wait pending outcome of the talk page. If you can have a look at the journal article in question ("Vaccine article" is the refname), it makes no mention of Sharyl Attkisson other than in the URL of a blog post in the article's bibliography. Sharyl Attkisson herself is not mentioned in the article. At the very least, the sentence needs to be refactored and a new source found per WP:BLP as it cannot wait for the conclusion of the talk page discussion per other issues in the article. Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I recommend having this discussion on the talk page of the article in question. If you need a third opinion at some point I'll be happy to help, but start out with a friendly discussion. – bradv🍁 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson#RfC on self-sourcing. Including you as a previous, repeated participant in discussion(s) on the relevant talk page, and as someone who upholds and takes very seriously WP:BLP. Doug Mehus T·C 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
More copyright violations at Jo-Ann Roberts
Hi Bradv,
Since you're so prompt at attending to, and hiding revisions, to potential copyvio issues in articles, I thought I'd tag you here. We seem to have now repeated problems with Jo-Ann Roberts. Likely out of sheer laziness in not wanting to rephrase/paraphrase, we have another instance, at the broadcasting career section of nearly two full parapgraphs being copied, verbatim, without placing in quotation marks, at minimum, and citing with a full bibliographic citation.
I know admins can salt protect repeatedly created pages, but do we have some sort of copyvio salt protect? Perhaps a strongly worded edit notice may be in order?
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I seem to have missed your message here, but it looks like the copyvio issue has now been dealt with. In the future you may want to consider removing the offending text yourself, and then using the
{{Copyvio-revdel}}template to alert administrators to which revisions need to be hidden in the history. – bradv🍁 21:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)- Bradv, Oh, thanks, Brad. Yes, I will do that next time. I didn't know about the copyvio-revdel template. Will do that. Will that template still file a copyvio report and log file entry, or will it just alert admins and/or create a log entry (i.e., not that use template)? Similarly, would it be worth hiding the diffs prior to administrator Ahecht removing the second instance of the copyvio? Oops, nevermind, I see you've already done that. Thanks! Doug Mehus T·C 22:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Draft:Jaan Valsiner
Please consider the recent changes in and the current status of Draft:Jaan Valsiner. I believe there should be no further questions as for sources, reliability, verifiability, general notability, and the like. All the best,--Yasya (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to remind you about my humble request to kindly reconsider and revise the current 'Draft' status of the entry that I created; otherwise please do contact me to let me know what further input is still missing that prevents you from fully releasing the Jaan Valsiner wiki entry. Most grateful for your cooperation! -- Humbly and respectfully yours--Yasya (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yasya, thanks for the reminder. Where did the information in the Life section come from? – bradv🍁 02:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, thanks for your rapid response. As I mentioned in the comment to the created entry, -- " entry created; selective translation from German wiki; stub" -- the info comes from the de-wiki entry, which, in turn, was translated from the original Estonian one. One might question the claims of those inter-wikis. Yet, in fact, I have done my homework and have verified most (if not all) of the claims with the independent sources and am fairly safe to claim that the entry, overall, does not provide any false or over-exaggerated information. In fact, most of the claims (if not all of them) have been supported with properly researched independent third-party sources. Please do not hesitate to show me the specific claims that are doubtful and/or are not properly supported, and I will be happy to remove them. Other than that, I would allow myself a most humble comment: Dr. Jaan Valsiner, psychologist and cultural studies researcher, is most reputable and stellar scholar of great international fame, as, I believe, is demonstrated by the current 'draft' entry and its numerous references; thus, I do not see any further obstacles to fully discharging this entry virtually 'as is', -- but please do instruct me if you believe I am wrong--Yasya (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yasya, so I did a bit of looking, and I believe that the subjects meets our criteria for inclusion. However, the "Life" section is not properly sourced, and there's no way to know if the claims in there are verifiable. Do you have any other sources you can add? Right now I think the only way to accept this draft would be by cutting out all of the unsourced information, which would leave this a pretty short stub. – bradv🍁 02:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, in response to your suggestion, all unverified (or potentially unverifiable) claims have been removed, -- otherwise, supported with references. Please indicate those that are still questionable, and I will duly take care of those, accordingly. Regards, --Yasya (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yasya, so I did a bit of looking, and I believe that the subjects meets our criteria for inclusion. However, the "Life" section is not properly sourced, and there's no way to know if the claims in there are verifiable. Do you have any other sources you can add? Right now I think the only way to accept this draft would be by cutting out all of the unsourced information, which would leave this a pretty short stub. – bradv🍁 02:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, thanks for your rapid response. As I mentioned in the comment to the created entry, -- " entry created; selective translation from German wiki; stub" -- the info comes from the de-wiki entry, which, in turn, was translated from the original Estonian one. One might question the claims of those inter-wikis. Yet, in fact, I have done my homework and have verified most (if not all) of the claims with the independent sources and am fairly safe to claim that the entry, overall, does not provide any false or over-exaggerated information. In fact, most of the claims (if not all of them) have been supported with properly researched independent third-party sources. Please do not hesitate to show me the specific claims that are doubtful and/or are not properly supported, and I will be happy to remove them. Other than that, I would allow myself a most humble comment: Dr. Jaan Valsiner, psychologist and cultural studies researcher, is most reputable and stellar scholar of great international fame, as, I believe, is demonstrated by the current 'draft' entry and its numerous references; thus, I do not see any further obstacles to fully discharging this entry virtually 'as is', -- but please do instruct me if you believe I am wrong--Yasya (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yasya, thanks for the reminder. Where did the information in the Life section come from? – bradv🍁 02:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
User talk:CentralTime301
When I left the message at User talk:CentralTime301, I felt it was probable that the IPs were not related to the blocked user; instead, it felt like a troll who came by to cause trouble. I still think that's it's the most likely explanation, but given how quickly CT301 showed up on the scene, I'm leaving open the possibility that CT301 was running the IPs. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
December events with WIR
|
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award
|
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
| This maple leaf is awarded to Bradv for creating the article Blanket exercise and promoting it through DYK during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
Respectfully disagree
Hi Bradv,
Can you clarify how the soft redirects for Wiktionary and other Wikimedia properties work then? Sure, the term I created a soft redirect for didn't exist exactly, but had the term been modified first at Wiktionary, then it G8 would not have applied and we would've had to go through AfD to determine if the redirect was useful? Technically, should've gone through RfD, not AfD, I think.
Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 20:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, please explain how creating cunt hair as a redirect to nothing at all benefits the reader. – bradv🍁 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, It's a humourous term to refer to a very fine unit of measurement. I would like to be able to wikilink CH where appropriate (i.e., "to split CHs" over minute details) in deletion discussions. I guess I'll have to go ahead and just use CH as a piped link to Wiktionary? Doug Mehus T·C 20:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Perhaps a better idea might be to add to an encyclopedic article, possibly a list, sourced by reputable sources of construction industry lingo (similar to the one on military lingo). Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, sorry, this is not Urban Dictionary. I don't think we need this at all. – bradv🍁 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, So, you're saying you're surprised it made it into Wiktionary? Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, If yes, I was as well. I hadn't thought of Wiktionary as an Urban Dictionary alternative. I don't even know what the requirements are for inclusion (i.e., sourcing) in Wiktionary. Doug Mehus T·C 20:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, I don't edit Wiktionary, and have no thoughts as to what's appropriate for that website. But I'm positive that redirects to non-existent targets are grounds for speedy deletion here. I'm also positive that an article about cunt hair as a unit of measurement is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. – bradv🍁 20:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, Oh, this is interesting...apparently, Red cunt hair was on Wikipedia, but consensus was to transwiki it to Wiktionary (see the discussion). Surprisingly, there was little appetite to outright delete it; some favoured keep, some favoured merging or redirecting, but mostly people !voted to transwiki. (Friendly ping to Trialpears). Anyway, learn something new every day. No harm, no foul. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Dmehus, sorry, this is not Urban Dictionary. I don't think we need this at all. – bradv🍁 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Britain First
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Britain First. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 11
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (November 2019).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 11th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
|
|
|
Enjoy your thanksgiving --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for helping out on my talk page against some trolls and vandals. Appreciate everything you do for the project. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
Urgent
Please, I am contacting you as the most recent active admin on that board. I received "Alert" with message that I reported someone on some strange page, I have no idea what a hell is this, so I am copy/pasting entire link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#[[User%3A]]_reported_by_User%3ASantasa99_%28Result%3A_%29
Can you please check this, I have some ugly disputes with some editors over the past few weeks, and I would like to be certain there is no breach in security of the accounts.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Santasa99, I don't really understand what you mean by "breach in security of the accounts", but I checked the article and you and Ceha are both edit warring. I've protected the page for 2 days - please work out your differences on the talk page and ping me if the protection can be lifted early. – bradv🍁 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, this is completely unrelated to editor Ceha and myself. I received alert with a message that I reported (at AN 3RR) someone (named A3 (?!)) for edit-warring on some page titled "IDAGIO" (?!). I clicked and followed the links on alert and couldn't find any such report. It's scary, and I am worrying, because it claims that I made a report there, with my name and all. Please check if it's some glitch - who could make such report on my part, with my name, or maybe from my account. I worry about this. please see what could have this be or at least refer me to someone who could know something about it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- If you want I could take a screen-shot of that alert - it's wicked - page name, name of the reported, with my account signature, and there is nothing on AN 3RR board.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Santasa99, ah, you were probably pinged by this diff, which was fixed in the next edit. That looks to me like a simple copy-and-paste error - no-one was trying to impersonate you. – bradv🍁 16:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Brad, very much. I was drilled, around these boards, for the last couple of weeks good, so please understand me if I was a bit paranoid - I couldn't even remember to check diffs myself :-) - sorry if I have caused any inconvenience, and I wish you have a pleasant rest of the day, cheers.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Santasa99, ah, you were probably pinged by this diff, which was fixed in the next edit. That looks to me like a simple copy-and-paste error - no-one was trying to impersonate you. – bradv🍁 16:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Bosnia
Why is Santasa version protected? He is constatly edit waring and removing wikipedia tags, withouth explanation on TP.... --Čeha (razgovor) 16:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, I am not endorsing one version over another - I'm simply trying to stop the disruption caused by the edit war. If you can come to an agreement at Talk:Bosnia (early medieval polity) I will happily unprotect the article. I was going to go to your talk page to tell you this, but since you're here - please stop calling other people's edits vandalism when they're clearly not ([3] [4]). That is not helpful in resolving a dispute. – bradv🍁 16:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any need for that? In answer above I listed all of your edits. What parts of it can even be disputable? What parts do need any further explanation? Everything is sourced very well, and discussed in talk pages.
- If you have anyting what is disputable, we can talk about that in talk pages, we can also rephrase something if better words would be more apropriate. You can see how that works in Usora pages, in my discussion with Mhare, the meaning of compromise. But I would like that in that time my version of article stays active (see the answer above, it's clearly why).... --Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)--Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- How are they not?
- Santasa did the folowing:
- erased the word vasal in the first paragraf (medival Bosnia was a vasal state, almost entire period of it's existance)
- erased the reference to it's name and labels in DAI
- erased the reference that it's medieval population is ancestor of todays 3 consitutive people; Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs
- erased the mention of unreability to fine's book (by Croatian historiografy)
- erased the mention that Martar was probable Konjic, as Mostar (and Blagaj) were in Zahumlje.
- erased the mention that Bosnian Core (as today's Bosnia is much greater area, maybe 10 times), and not whole Bosnia was under Serbian rule
- erased the mention of Croatian rule in 10th and 11th century, and sources about that.
- without argumenting any of that changes in talk pages.--Čeha (razgovor) 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, these arguments should be made on the talk page of the article where other editors can weigh in. If there is consensus for an edit, ping me and I will implement it or lift the protection as appropriate. I am not going to weigh in on the substance of the dispute, either here or on the article. – bradv🍁 19:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll copy this discusion to article TP, no problem. But I would like you to protect the other version (the versions are equal, right?, and the other one was here before Santasa started erasing sourced data). Protected version should be that first, before Santasa edit-war, not after, right?
- As for possible rephrasing, no problem, if anybody has better phrase to use, great.
- Realy, I'd like to see why Santasa erased all that sourced data, I'ld like to hear his explanation for that. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I won't say why, but editor Ceha simply refuses to accept that editors opinion is irrelevant. Editor Ceha doesn't understand or accept what WP:PRIMARY source are and what it means in context of wikipedia, and he obviously has no intention to read guidelines on primaries to learn, nor does he understand meaning of WP:SECONDARY sources either, Ceha doesn't understand or accept that these are two different categories. Ceha doesn't understand or accept that primary source can be acceptable on wikipedia only under very specific circumstances, but rarely if ever without reliable secondary source, he refuses to understand or accept that editors aren't allowed to build an article based on their interpretation of primary sources because that's WP:ORIGINAL research, he refuses to accept that he needs secondary sources, that is, trained historians to interpret historical primary sources - even this post of mine could suffice if Ceha has any intention of learning about sources and how wikipedia uses them. By the way, editor Ceha refuses to understand that I am absolutely allowed to remove unsourced claims, especially if I find them to be based on editor's opinion and wishful thinking. The curious thing is that editor Ceha has this habit to misleadingly explains situation as if no one is actually able or willing to go and check for themselves what is and what isn't the case, what's really happening, and who said what and who was doing what and why - that's pretty baffling attitude - I wouldn't dare to remove prose which is referenced with reliable sources, no matter how wrong and contestable that prose may seem to me! And last but not least, reverts will continue as soon as protection is lifted.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Santasa99 said he will prove his claims, and instead he is again commenting me? Is any need for personal atacks and unwikipedian behaviour?
- Again User:Bradv can you return to the previous version of the article? User Santasa has gone back on his word, how can any discussion with him be possible after such behavior (and comments)? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What on earth you are talking about? Where have I said that I will prove some claim, what claims; where and why am I gone back on my word, what word? And where do you see "personal attack", what is "personal" in above post?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Let me qote you Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What is the meaning of bold?
- First, you behave as you were an owner of the article. Should I ask you for permission to edit the article? Are you a moderator here?
- Secondly, your obligation is to argument your changes. I commented them, and you did promise in the bold part that you will respect the wiki-rules and argument changes, right? You are not doing that, you are commenthing me.
- Those are beginer's mistakes, and you should've learn better by now.
- And for personal atacks, let me quote you again; Editor Ceha doesn't understand or accept, how many times have you repeated that phrase? -
- Basicly you are edit-waring, sticking your prefered sources dening any possibility of compromise and commenting any editor who tried to talk to you or had an opinion which is not similar to yours.
- Once again User:Bradv, please help. How is discussion with this user possible? The guy doesn't want to explain his changes or discuss it. He lacks good faith, no matter how hard others try.-Čeha (razgovor) 21:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=928522471&oldid=928520541 User talk:Santasa99 is again commenting me, and not the article on TP. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- And in what universe that bold text mean what you said above, namely that I have to prove some claims (Santasa99 said he will prove his claims)? I just hope you aren't doing this on purpose, in attempt to provoke some inappropriate reaction. You made false claim at Talk:Bosnia_(early_medieval_polity) too, saying that we "we agreed" here on Brad's TP that I "will try to explain" why I removed some lines of text from the article, although I already did exactly that, here on this TP above when I tried to explain to you reliable sources and how we use them with appropriate usage of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- In which paralel universe you did so? I counted them, from 1. to 7. and opened discussion about them. You did not comment any of them, you just gave your vague interpretation of wikipedia politics. For example where did you explain that meddieval Bosnia was not vasal for most of the time of it's existence? I really hope you aren't doing that on purpose.
- Do you realy don't understand what a word discussion means? In bold part of the text you gave a promise that you will answer to changes which are made. Have you done so? The point of wikipedia is commenting of the article, not editors, and you are doing the opposite. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- And in what universe that bold text mean what you said above, namely that I have to prove some claims (Santasa99 said he will prove his claims)? I just hope you aren't doing this on purpose, in attempt to provoke some inappropriate reaction. You made false claim at Talk:Bosnia_(early_medieval_polity) too, saying that we "we agreed" here on Brad's TP that I "will try to explain" why I removed some lines of text from the article, although I already did exactly that, here on this TP above when I tried to explain to you reliable sources and how we use them with appropriate usage of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=928522471&oldid=928520541 User talk:Santasa99 is again commenting me, and not the article on TP. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Let me qote you Ceha, here we are on the admin who protected article TP, so I am going to tell you that you are still absolutely free to make the very same revert or edit now that page is protected by placing formal requesting for that edit in article Talk page, with both admin Brad and myself there to scrutinize your edit-request, and if you think, and if you can prove that your requested edits are valid and in accordance to basic WP policies and guidelines, you will get "your version" of the article in no-time - what say you?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- What on earth you are talking about? Where have I said that I will prove some claim, what claims; where and why am I gone back on my word, what word? And where do you see "personal attack", what is "personal" in above post?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I won't say why, but editor Ceha simply refuses to accept that editors opinion is irrelevant. Editor Ceha doesn't understand or accept what WP:PRIMARY source are and what it means in context of wikipedia, and he obviously has no intention to read guidelines on primaries to learn, nor does he understand meaning of WP:SECONDARY sources either, Ceha doesn't understand or accept that these are two different categories. Ceha doesn't understand or accept that primary source can be acceptable on wikipedia only under very specific circumstances, but rarely if ever without reliable secondary source, he refuses to understand or accept that editors aren't allowed to build an article based on their interpretation of primary sources because that's WP:ORIGINAL research, he refuses to accept that he needs secondary sources, that is, trained historians to interpret historical primary sources - even this post of mine could suffice if Ceha has any intention of learning about sources and how wikipedia uses them. By the way, editor Ceha refuses to understand that I am absolutely allowed to remove unsourced claims, especially if I find them to be based on editor's opinion and wishful thinking. The curious thing is that editor Ceha has this habit to misleadingly explains situation as if no one is actually able or willing to go and check for themselves what is and what isn't the case, what's really happening, and who said what and who was doing what and why - that's pretty baffling attitude - I wouldn't dare to remove prose which is referenced with reliable sources, no matter how wrong and contestable that prose may seem to me! And last but not least, reverts will continue as soon as protection is lifted.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Ceha, Santasa99, because I'm a little tired of this dispute playing out on my talk page, let me make several points and then hopefully we can all move on. They may not apply to both of you equally, so please wear what fits:
- If you believe that I have protected m:The Wrong Version, get consensus for the Right Version on the talk page of the article, and then make use the {{edit fully-protected}} template to make an edit request (or just ping me).
- Comment on content, not contributors. Don't call good faith edits vandalism, no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless they're intentionally sabotaging the encyclopedia, their edits are not vandalism.
- This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions. Both of you have received notices within the past year, so you should be aware of what this entails. I have also added a similar tag to the article.
- Edit warring is counterproductive and extremely disruptive. Repeatedly reverting, especially in areas subject to discretionary sanctions, will result in blocks and topic bans.
Right now you should be gathering sources and presenting clear arguments for your point of view on the article talk page, rather than attacking each other or refusing to compromise. You both want to improve the article – that can happen, but only if you work together. – bradv🍁 21:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I will say this one last thing before Brad gets angry and kick us out of his TP: at the beginning of this thread I told you to use page protection as an opportunity (not to see it only as an obstacle for your agenda) to file a formal edit-request, and that admin who protected article and myself will scrutinize your requested edits if they are valid per guidelines and policies, to which you responded by listing my own previous edits and started asking me to explain them - so you completely inverted entire situation, together with everything which I was saying all this time. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Brad, I apologize on my last post, I was unaware of your reply, although it was predictable, really sorry. Cheers. --౪ Santa ౪99° 21:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we already have a DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard on Donji Kraji topic, this is just escalation of the topic.
- If you know someone who is willing to moderate those 7 points, please notify us. Or should we go to the DRN as on Donji Kraji topic?
- Sorry for inconvinence. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Notification spam
Hi. I just got over a hundred notifications that you had patrolled my redirects - you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol#RfC on autopatrolling redirects (not trying to canvas, hopefully this was phrased neutrally enough). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Help for a newish wikipedia user
Hi! I am not sure who to turn to so I thought you were someone I could ask for help. On the page of "Steve Chen", there is a user who is adding edits that were not agreed upon on the Talk page. I reverted a couple times and provided my answers as well as encouragement to the user to start Talk page sections, and when I found the user to be persistent, I started Talk sections on the topics he was concerned about so as to address them communally. He did not bother to participate in any of these Talk sections but continued to revert. I don't want to edit-war with this user. Please tell me what I should do. I would appreciate any advice and guidance you have. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Apoorva Iyer, I've left a warning for the IP and reverted the article back to the stable version. Please don't revert again, as you are also at three reverts. The best thing to do is to start a talk page discussion about the edits, as you have done, and if they persist to report to WP:ANEW (for edit warring) or WP:RFPP (to ask for protection). I'll keep an eye on the article for now, and protect it if necessary. – bradv🍁 05:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your help and guidance. So for the future, the best avenue is that I approach a noticeboard? Also, another user has reverted again. Unsure whether it is truly another user or just the same user with another IP address. Unsure how to go about this entire process. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, since I am not sure whether this new reversion is the same user or a different one, what do I do next? Should I report to a noticeboard? I think protection maybe necessary until and unless the user(s) begin to engage on the talk page. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've now semiprotected Steve Chen, but with the last IP edit still in place. Since that edit adds a citation to the Daily Mirror, and claims that Taiwan holds nuclear weapons (contrary to what Wikipedia says in Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction), my guess is that somebody should revert it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| For a brilliant and hilarious response that made everyone around me wonder why I'm laughing so loud at my computer. Hats off to you, good sir! – Levivich 20:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
|
Thanks for fixing the edit log on Gable. I appreciate it! KNHaw (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
U R CERTIFIABLE
|
Certified |
| YAY! Praxidicae (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC) |
Kingdom of Bosnia, Bosnian Banate and 3RR/Edit-war
As I can see, I did not brake 3RR (the same number as user MHare). Also, my edits are more of the style, although user MHare deleted one of the references. No need to repeat the same word over and over. What do you suggest how can we fix that problem? Edits are this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=929241904&oldid=929241045 --Čeha (razgovor) 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- As for Bosnian Banate, which consensus have I broken? Do look my changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banate_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=929242193&oldid=929240822 I'm just trying to use better wording than MHare or Santasa. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, can you offer some solution? From my POV, those changes are for the betterment of the article, It's a little bit of if every second word is the same. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, you need to convince the other editors that your proposed changes are improvements, and this needs to happen on the talk page of the article. Please see WP:BRD. – bradv🍁 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Santasa is not willing to talk about anything (at the end I had to rewrote the whole Donji Kraji article), and Mhare has begun to qoute massivly Fine, although he saw all the arguments against him, and started discussion about his non reability.
- I'm afraid that the process we had with Donji Kraji (it's last step, previous three were fruteless unfortunately) will have to be repeated with this topics also....
- If there is a moderator who will be willing to moderate discussion.
- Also, very large parts of disputed articles will be deemed unusable if the Fine is declared as unusefull source. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, this isn't about other editors, it's about your persistent edit warring and unwillingness to listen and work collaboratively with the other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedia - everyone needs to be able to work together to improve the content. – bradv🍁 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- And while I was typing that, you reverted again. See User talk:Ceha#December 2019. – bradv🍁 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, sorry I didn't saw the last warning. Will you still try to help on those pages? I'll put the edit explanation on talk pages, but no one edited those back, Santasa reverted to his version, without any consensus, or explanation. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, I am willing to help moderate any disputes as an impartial editor, but you will need to work with the other editors on each page to form consensus. I recommend presenting sources along with your proposed changes, so that the other editors can help determine whether they are neutral and verifiable. – bradv🍁 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am trying to do that. However with little succes. Look at the Bosnian medieval entity page. User Santasa puted data which doesn't belong to that article, and it's still there. I commented it on Talk pages, but no resonse have happened. If I would change the page, I bet that immediate revert would follow.
- There was a discussion of 7 points. It's completly neglected now. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, I am willing to help moderate any disputes as an impartial editor, but you will need to work with the other editors on each page to form consensus. I recommend presenting sources along with your proposed changes, so that the other editors can help determine whether they are neutral and verifiable. – bradv🍁 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, sorry I didn't saw the last warning. Will you still try to help on those pages? I'll put the edit explanation on talk pages, but no one edited those back, Santasa reverted to his version, without any consensus, or explanation. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- And while I was typing that, you reverted again. See User talk:Ceha#December 2019. – bradv🍁 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, this isn't about other editors, it's about your persistent edit warring and unwillingness to listen and work collaboratively with the other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedia - everyone needs to be able to work together to improve the content. – bradv🍁 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, you need to convince the other editors that your proposed changes are improvements, and this needs to happen on the talk page of the article. Please see WP:BRD. – bradv🍁 15:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, can you offer some solution? From my POV, those changes are for the betterment of the article, It's a little bit of if every second word is the same. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Please log...
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Enforcement_log, please add 2019_Israeli_airstrikes_in_Iraq to the current Arbitration enforcement log. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Buffs, already done, back when I protected it the first time. – bradv🍁 16:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I think I missed that. Why did it need to be reapplied? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Because the page was deleted and then undeleted and (I think) that clears protection. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I think I missed that. Why did it need to be reapplied? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Peace Dove
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It’s that time of year!
 Atsme Talk 📧 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
Cheers
|
Merry Christmas, Bradv! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 19:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC) |
|