User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2020/August
 | This page 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. |
The Signpost: 2 August 2020
- Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?
- COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
- News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin
- In the media: Dog days gone bad
- Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
- Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom
- Traffic report: Now for something completely different
- News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users
- Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil
Could you please restore this article, albeit to the draftspace? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792:
Done now at User:Kailash29792/PRK Productions. GedUK 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Delhi FC
Can I get the last version of the article? I want to create the article. Its in the news now. [1], [2] ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @ArnabSaha: The article was deleted because it was a copy of 2014 Delhi Dynamos FC season, not because the club wasn't notable. There is already an article on Odisha FC which is the new name of the Delhi club I believe. There's no point restoring the article that was a copy of another one. GedUK 10:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello
Hi Sir, you declined speedy nomination on The Violin Guild page. It looks like a planned attack on me and my page as someone first tried to speedy delete it and now trying to prod it. That person is only deleting pages on Wikipedia as per his history, are we all dumb we created these pages? I oath that I am not paid for this page at all and did that for music industry professionals because I love violin and it was once debated in a program about Wiki page. I believe if there's a problem it should go via xfd. JK.Kite (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
About this
- King of the Q (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in AEK Athens F.C. in European football keeps adding unnessecary material despite my attepts to revert to the texts as it were originally created. His additions were also rejected by other users on various AEK Athens F.C. articles but he keeps on insisting. Requesting of permanent revert of his edits on the current page and take the appropriate measures if he does not comply. BEN917 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Declined. It's not vandalism, it's edit warring, and you're both doing it. Use the talk page, which is notably blank. GedUK 12:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- -I did not an edit war, or at least I didn't intended to. The previously metnioned user did made his percenptional edits over the article and I just tried to keep the article as it was by previous editions from other users. It wasn't my edits that was changed but other users' additions. This specific user as you can see, made the same changes to other pages without any acceptance from any user. So why should my request be declined? I just asked the article to be as it was before the so called "edit war", especially when the changes are deemed objective, from each side. Or at least tell me to which person should I talk to in order for this matter to be put into an end. Thank you for your time! BEN917 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- @BEN917: Have a look at the article history. You've both been reverting each others edits, and getting snarkier and more aggressive in the edit comments each time. The article's talk page hasn't been touched at all, there's no attempt at talking about it. It's almost a textbook definition of an edit war. His edits are no more vandalism than yours are. If I was going to block him, I'd have had to block you too. The 'way to put the matter to an end' is to agree consensus on the talk page. Once consensus is agreed, then that can be enforced as necessary through blocks or page protection. GedUK 14:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- -I specifically stated that those where not my edits but I just was reverting his and tried to keep the article to the version it was before any changes. I, my self, did not change anything on the article. Additionally I never asked for the user to be blocked or anything like this, as I think not he deserves as such for having a different opinion for the article. And about your final statement (answering my previous final statement), if we do not agree consensus what is going to happen? Will the article remain with the version that happened to occur last? Shoudn't all of the relative edits be reverted? Because that was the only thing I requested and nothing more reguarding this issue. BEN917 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- -I did not an edit war, or at least I didn't intended to. The previously metnioned user did made his percenptional edits over the article and I just tried to keep the article as it was by previous editions from other users. It wasn't my edits that was changed but other users' additions. This specific user as you can see, made the same changes to other pages without any acceptance from any user. So why should my request be declined? I just asked the article to be as it was before the so called "edit war", especially when the changes are deemed objective, from each side. Or at least tell me to which person should I talk to in order for this matter to be put into an end. Thank you for your time! BEN917 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
In response to August 2020
Hi GedUK , I have edited many pages concerning A.E.K. Athens sport departments, one of which tends to be AEK Athens F.C. in European football. For me, a main purpose of wikipedia is for users to improve articles, pages etc., correct me if I am wrong! I have spent many hours trying to improve most of the sectors on the aforementioned page and in response to BEN917 no one has ever reverted my edits on this specific article than him, that speaks out for itself. Also, in your response, I am the one that first reverted BEN917 edit but if you take a closer look at the perennial history of this page then you will fully understand why I did it. As said above wikipedia is for improving articles etc. based on citations and true sources but also by using good faith and perception so that people can learn as much more as they want from each and every page or article or whatever is on there for them, having considered this you have to ask BEN917 why he keeps editing or reverting this page to what it looked like a couple years' ago??? How was the article improved over the years'??? Should I start reverting or editing pages to what they looked like years' ago, that's what you are telling me??? Moreover, I am not changing any content on how I believe it should be but on how I can add as many information as I can for people or football fans to read, why to hide extra bits that can boost an article or a page??? Last but not least, I have never before been accused for vandalism or edit warring, funny but a bit strange as well! Finally, yes I am guilty as he is for reverting edits and yes I am guilty because I support improvement of an article or a page and not keeping it to a primitive form of life! Thanks anyway!
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
Editing news 2020 #4
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
- More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
- Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
- Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[3]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
New requirements for user signatures
- The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
- Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next: New discussion tool
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)