User:L293D/Archives/2018-5

Vandalism Revert

Hey, L293D! This is a fellow (friendly) Wikipedian wondering why you reverted an edit on N. T. Rama Rao Jr. without notifying the user that his information was reverted. Why did the user not receive a notice? By the way, your vandalism level indicator is pretty cool... - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 19:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Persistent vandalism and reverting it doesn't always warrant a response. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad:Possibly true, but doesn't it mean that the user should be blocked if the vandalism is persistent? Also, the Template:Uw-warn does exist. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I tend to forget these days, but I should remember. Especially because it doubles your EPD, but shhhh..... L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: All right! Thanks for replying! Hahaha... Good point. ;) - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Memoires : fils de la nation

Hey there, it's Redexxes, and I was just wondering about a page you created. I edited the last section, and there was some stuff unclear, just wanted to ask for you to check out the page and see if it still communicates the ideas you were trying to communicate. Thanks! Red.exxes (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Really nice work. I was watching the page and you really made it better. You might want to come back to it in a month or so when I will have added the end of the plot but right now I'm not done reading it. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Humour & RFAs

Hi, Please keep humour off of RFAs, I appreciate you were having a bit of a laugh and trying to lighten the mood but there's a time and a place for that sort of stuff,
If we allowed it from you we'd have to allow it from everybody and as we all have different takes on humour allowing it would not only cause a lot of issues but it would also see the RFA process just sink really,
As I said time and a place, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. A little levity is OK but the recent good faith attempt at humor was a bit edgy. This is a tough RfA. We should avoid posting anything that might be taken the wrong way or add the already existing controversies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I understand that the image with Tony looking in the periscope to torpedo GMG's RfA was really edgy. But I thought the sinking Titainc would have been OK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) +1 from me. I know you were trying to be funny, and yeah, my oppose did kind start the current trend, but personally, it wasn't something I enjoyed doing even if I did feel switching was needed. I still really like GreenMeansGo and think he's a great user in many ways. I wouldn't want anyone to have the impression through humour that somehow I took joy in opposing or in the RfA being tough. This is easily the toughest RfA in well over a year, and, well, I think we should show just a bit of respect for what he is going through, which can't be fun. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "I thought the sinking Titainc would have been OK"—just about sums it up. Particularly when that was just doubing down on the Lusitania. This, too, is very recent. Your sense of humour is, if I may say, rather opaque: I'm not sure it's particularly suited for—Beyond The Talkpage Wall, shall we say? :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In related news - consider this a final warning regarding mistakes on other people's user/talk pages - just leave them be. If you see something wrong, let the other user know. I would also suggest leaving GMG alone for a bit, because you've now had four questionable edits to pages involving them, and it really doesn't look good. Primefac (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC) and yes, I know that NOBAN allows for minor editing for things like typos and the like, but you got blocked for it and your recent fascination with GMG is somewhat troubling, which is why I'm making what might seem to be a big deal out of it. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you

for defending my poor, little dog--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Shhhh... I'm on Wikibreak.... :) But anyways, yes, all my IPs are rangeblocked for one year so I had to use my alt. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMAS Hobart (D63)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMAS Hobart (D63) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You keep beating me at reverting vandalism! Keep up the good work! MusicalKnight (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, you made my day! L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Permission

Hello - I would like your permission to use this signutare and to edit my user page inspired by you, I think it would be best if I checked with you first. Chuck (☎) 23:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course! Its interesting how you are the third user I find today with my signature. Perhaps one day everyone will have it! L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

francais

It geolocates to portland, so I have doubts about the authenticity of the Frenchness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he's probably a troll that's using French as a way of trolling. Besides, his french is a bit broken (Maybe he used google translate like you). L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Du hast einen neuen Freund (my German is better)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, his French is completely broken. Most of his sentences are grammatically incorrect or have no real sense. However, he still has something French about him, since he writes his french with "ç" and "à"s at the right place. But I'm pretty sure google translate could do this too. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"vandalism".

I was not "vandalising" the Wikipedia page merely adding important information which as the article was very small and needed extra information, I therefore decided to add it. I was about to Cite my Sources when you deleted all the information which I had just added; which is vandalism in itsef.

Please refrain from deleting/vandalising Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4h4al (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

If you are calling it "vandalism" because you did not give me enough time to cite the source, then here is the source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/4991618.stm

Now will please will you let me post it.R4h4al (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@R4h4al: yes, I re-added the text along with the source you gave. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

NGFS page

Please do not edit the New Garden Friends School page. The vandalism is by User Kgoodrich69 which you reverted back to. I am the admin for the school and trying to keep correct information on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.50.54 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP, sometimes it can be difficult to tell vandalism from truth, though we always try to ensure that the references provided support the statements being made. Sometimes this isn't done, though, and incorrect information can accidentally be reverted to as the "right version". It looks like the incorrect information has been corrected, though. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Discretionary sanctions violation

You violated the editing restrictions at Donald Trump with this edit. The editing restriction explicitly advises: "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.". Your violation of this restriction can result in you being blocked from editing or topic banned. Please self-revert and don't restore this material again until there is clear consensus to do so.- MrX 🖋 19:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I happily self-revert if needed, but what exactly did I violate? Editing restrictions? I posted on the talk page and no one replied. So I reinstated my edit. The first edit was made yesterday, so I wasn't breaking 1RR but my recent edit. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article., just as I wrote in my above comment and as was written in the prominent edit notices both times that you performed this edit.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, for the explanation, I self-reverted. Sorry. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi L293D! Did you receive one of those "Discretionary Sanctions Alerts" and are wondering what the heck is it all about? Well, I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ-check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt: Thanks, I read it! But anyway I'm used to this, someone gave me the {{DS/alert}} four month ago and I just got another version yesterday! These tags are just so that if someone annoys you on a page with DS, just scare him with this and you hope he will be so scared he won't come back. This works especially well with newcomers, who have no idea we have an ARBCOM. Actually here is a very funny template:

This message contains important information about a fairly exceptionally complex and esoteric set of special rules on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date, which we feel the need to point out explicitly, because everything else about this template screams exactly that.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions related to a fairly arbitrary set of topics. The Committee's decision is probably not remotely intelligible to new users, the type of which would need a notification such as this, so we've opted to omit the link all together moving forward.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to corral disruption on controversial topics to its very own special venue, with special rules regarding how we enforce our special rules, which must be followed in exquisite lawyerly detail, despite any rumor to the contrary. This means uninvolved administrators can unilaterally impose comparatively arbitrary sanctions for conduct that would often not be sanctionable in an open community discussion. These should normally be immediately appealed at the Administrators' Noticeboard, in a discussion that will waste a maximum amount of community time, and almost certainly result in no consensus.

This message is a compulsory notification as part of the above mentioned special rules that must be unflinchingly adhered to. Please do not bother to familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions system, because if we're being completely honest, half the time some of our most experienced editors, including sitting and former committee members, don't themselves perfectly agree on what they mean and how they should be enforced.

I hope you like it! L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather cynical and unfortunate take. The reason discretionary sanctions exist is because of the atrociously bad behavior of small minority of self-righteous editors who think the rules don't apply to them. Their conduct has generated a huge amount of disruption, discord, noticeboard discussions, and several exhausting Arbcom cases. While DS may seem arcane and overly-bureaucratic, it has actually prevented many situations from getting out of hand. It has benefited our core purpose of building on online encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 12:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the templates are obnoxious, but MrX is generally correct. Part of the point of the template (while wholly informational and not a threat or warning) is to let people know to take it slow in an area, and for most people, simply giving the template makes them realize that the area they are editing in is controversial and that they should slow down. I hand out DS alerts semi-regularly, normally in the BLP topic area because they tend to drive home the point better than a note saying "hey, remember BLP is a super-special area on Wikipedia." In that regard, the alert system achieves for most people the intent of the discretionary sanctions regime without actually having to resort to sanctions: it sends them to the talk page for anything controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

L293D: ROFL. I agree that these notices amount to sanctioned BITEing. They are only used to eliminate editors who oppose your position. The best part is "Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." When the newbie asks the poster about the notice they reply with something like "Post 1932 articles require very careful editing and if you're uncertain you should avoid the area alltogether" lmfao. Need proof? User_talk:Eibericb. Think we'll ever see him again? And WMF wonders why they have an editor retention problem ROFL-LMFAO. – Lionel^(talk) 09:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi, few days ago you accepted draft, created by me namely draft:Noor ul Ain, that was deleted because earlier before i created (it was created by some sock), dont know what the controversy is with that page and creater, but i am feeling very helpless. Its very high rating drama serial will you please help me or create with your own wordings if possible. Thank You. Its that youtube episode link, and you can see views on that too [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.142 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@119.160.119.142:(talk page watcher) I guess the question on my mind is "are you a blocked or banned user violating said block or ban". The thing was deleted by primefac, so can ask him/her/them about the deletion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I also asked on admin page too but they did'nt respond. I swear i am not sock. But i done one mistake and that was creation of that draft again with same wordings after it was deleted but i am sorry for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.142 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The only person who asked me about the draft was L293D, and I responded to them. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Extremely sorry, dont know much about how i add that talk page link here but main heading was Deletion of draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.142 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I seem to have overlooked your post. I believe L293D is taking care of a rewrite. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I will be recreating the article in a couple days. Primefac, I saved the content so don't worry about the expiry. Many thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Thankx again for your kind response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.142 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You So Much

Hi L293D, I would like to thank you so much. When I was reaserching Ancient Greece I looked at the last Editor and wrote you as the author... wrong thing to do. Point is, is that I clicked on your name and checked out your account. When I saw how many things I could do on Wikipedia I was inspired to make an account and contribute, create and, stop vandalisation of pages. All of this happened because of you.

Thanks, TVMexeno TVMexeno (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMAS Hobart (D63)

The article HMAS Hobart (D63) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMAS Hobart (D63) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No Subject

Ok

That was an accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolomon2 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Misinformed Ignorant Description on a Page

The description which says "Founder of Islam" at the start of the page of Muhammad is clearly misinformed and ignorant, not only is it false to the originality but is also offensive to 1.6 billion Muslims living in 2018. It is very surprising how this Wikipedia contribution would start the very first lines of "Prophet Muhammad" page by labeling him a "Founder of Islam" such a statement is inflammatory, discriminatory and Islamophobic. The fact that Wikipedia would source a non-Muslim viewpoint on describing Muhammad before the 100s of Muslim expert and historical experts shows Wikipedia edit of "Founder of Islam" is done to misinform people and have a political view. Political leaning are not Wikipedia way so it is better to have a neutral view which is not leaning on any sides. Labeling Muhammad a "founder of Islam" is an ignorant statement that is not present in most "historical accounts of Islam, Muslims, non-muslims, news and literature sources views from experts. The 2 sources no. 2 and 3 are also from a far right, Islamophobic view which has a political leaning to call Muhammad a "Founder of Islam". Even if you describe from so called "historical view" which is misinformed and ignorant should come in "Criticism of Muhammad" section and theological perspective should come first as that is the original source not some one sided opinion from a book from 2012 or 2009 which has a political leaning and a false description of Muhammad. The statement "Founder of Islam" should be removed as it is false and makes Wikipedia information to seem unreliable, misinformed, uneducated and political in its information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightlyGuided (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure what your point is, could you elaborate? Talk page stalkers comment Lyndaship (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lyndaship: Pretty sure they are talking about Talk:Muhammad#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_3_May_2018 {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Your revert

So, why did you revert my edit? And don't you think that not even stating your reason in the edit summary is aggressive and inconsiderate behaviour (cf. WP:RV#Explain reverts)?--94.155.68.202 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you because you totally changed the meaning of the sentence. But mow that I investigated more, it seems more like you were right. You can revert me and Ill let someone else review the pending change. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)