Wikipedia

User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 20

< User talk:Cassiopeia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by CASSIOPEIA in topic Re: Vandalism
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Wikidata weekly summary #361

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Improved the external identifiers landscape (phab:T204440)
    • Prepare process and announcement for the wb_terms migration to come
    • Allow configuring WDQS UI without changes to files under version control (phab:T194179)
    • Configure suggestion constraint level on Beta (phab:T221107)
    • Graduate suggestions based on constraints beta feature out of beta features (phab:T209879)
    • Editing of labels and descriptions on mobile (phab:T216987)
    • Editing aliases on mobile (phab:T218690)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Jet2holidays

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi CASSIOPEIA,

Apologies in advance if this isn’t where I’m meant to respond to the issues raised earlier today about Jet2holidays, but I hope it’s how to do it.

I disclose my day-to-day job as a writer on my user page to clarify that I try to bring best practice from my life whenever I have time to have a go at full contributions, as I know standards are very high on Wikipedia. I’ve wanted to prove my skills through making new submissions which are complete, carefully researched/referenced and balanced, on organisations I know and believe are viable for a page, which I write in my spare time away from work. Each submission I make is made in good faith, and Jet2holidays is the second-largest company of its kind in the UK, so I hoped it would be a good addition.

I understand your concerns because my submissions tend to be big and thorough, and I’m really sorry if I produced any entries that are seen as promotional – I’m happy to work with you to address any issues that may have been identified in this article as part of the cleanup and compliance with content policies. Thanks for your understanding; I want to help out and be proud of my submissions and edits! TGPMatt (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi TGPMatt Good day. Thank you for the question above. I have notice you declare you are a paid editor in your user page and from on your history page you have indicated you are a professional write (date July 2015). You have published 2 articles, OneFamily (June 2016) [1] and Job Today (Oct 2017) [2] without going through article for creation. In Wikipedia WP:PAID editors need to go through article for creation (AfC) to create articles instead of going through New Page channel. Wikipedia does not encourage editor with conflict of interest to add content/create article as it is very difficult to write the content in neutral point of view and without a single WP:PROMOTION or puffery word for such that is the reason why paid editor needs to go through AfC process. In addition, you need to "disclose" you are a paid editor in (1) your user page for that particular articles (if you have write 3 articles - then disclosure them all) and (2) on the article's talk page. I am not sure how well you know about Wikipedia policies/guidelines - for a start do look into WP:GOLDENRULE. Once you have disclosure all 3 of your articles, the articles need to move to AfC (draft) and you can submit for review. If the reviewers find the topic/subject is notable and the content is well sourced (significant coverage by independent reliable sources (example from major newspaper) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth) and the content is free of [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright infringement) and written in a neutral point of view then the articles will be accepted and move back to main space. Do note any article which are in mainspace of Wikipedia and deem not notable, will be subject to nominate for deletion even it is accepted by a reviewer and has been in Wikipedia mainspace for years. I understand that is a lot info and links (click on the blue highlighted texts for details info) on this message, but I believe, for a professional writer as yourself, it would be easy for you to understand the guidelines that addressed above. Please go to WP:PAID and have a read and WP:DISCLOSURE for how the instructions on how to disclosure as a paid editor then let me know when you have done them. Thank you and let me know what else I could help. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi CASSIOPEIA. Thanks for your quick response. I just wanted to clarify my position as my user page seems to have been misinterpreted, as I’m not a paid editor.
In any of my user page edits, I've never said I was a paid editor – I just said I’m a writer in real life, away from Wikipedia, as background information. In my 2015 user page, I explained that I was a full-time writer at that time, and I updated it in 2017 when I changed jobs, as I now write in smaller amounts. My contributions to Wikipedia have never been paid for and are only because I enjoy it – I edit and add to Wikipedia for fun and to help out a website I've used for years. I’ve studied WP:GOLDENRULE carefully, which is why I made Jet2holidays and other pages so thorough and with reliable, significant coverage on the topic. I chose OneFamily as I knew of both Family Investments and Engage Mutual Assurance before they merged (and because Engage Mutual Assurance’s page had set precedence and had become a defunct company), while Job Today was a company I thought was notable enough when I wanted to write another article for Wikipedia. These were also never paid for, but solely my additions. I’ve seen that Jet2holidays has been edited and reviewed since your last message, which has taught me more about what is deemed relevant, and it’s another learning experience – I don’t know if I was suspected of being a paid editor because of accidental puffery. I just wrote it because it is a very notable company in the UK.
I hope this clears things up. Thanks again – I appreciate your help and replies. TGPMatt (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
TGPMatt Greetings. Thank you for the clarification and tag has been removed from article. I would suggest you to state that in your user page that you are not a paid editor or have any COI of the page you created or edited so this will make things clearer which no such misunderstanding would take place. Thanks again for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, CASSIOPEIA! I'll make sure I do that today. Thanks for your support. TGPMatt (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
TGPMatt You are always welcome and thank you for your contribution. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for speedy revision - Draft:Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, can I please get a speedy revision of Draft:Rotation_of_senators_after_a_double_dissolution? - on the grounds that it was only a few hours hold when it was moved to draft, so a two month review time seems unreasonable. Note that there is an explanation on the talk page of why it was created, as well as a link to discussion with other wikipedia admin about the need to create it. There are anticipated edits to about 20 other pages once this one goes through, which will no doubt include input from the other editors interested in the topic, in addition to this phase.

I have added a lot of content with appropriate sources.

Thanks.

Oz freediver (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oz freediver G'day and thank you for your message above. The article was moved to draft space because it was not sourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content needs to supported by independent, reliable sources for verification and it is the WP:BURDEN of the editor who input the content to provide source to verify the content claimed as per sources - see WP:PROVEIT. In the future, kindly write your article in your sandbox and when it is ready, copy and paste in new page for publication. If the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia's guidelines and accepted by a reviewer, then it will be punished in the Wikipedia main space. I understand most editors would think 8 week back log is a long time; however, do understand all of us, the limited reviewers either on New Page or Article for Creation, are volunteers, who spend their time and put in effort to help the project so the general public in the world would obtain free knowledge in Wikipedia. At current, we have over 9K articles in total in backlog waiting to be reviewed. Thus, kindly be patient and I will go through your article later. Kindly create another column for "Ref" for the "Senators affected" table and provide inline citation. By the way, I will change the title of the page as it is not specific enough (need to specify the connection to Australia) and you could start your other articles in your sandbox meanwhile if you wish. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the consideration. I'll add the column. Double dissolution is specific to Australia. See for example: Double_dissolution. Oz freediver (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Oz freediver By the way, I saw you placed "http://www.ozpolitic.com/" on your user page, what is the connection you have with the web site? and are you a paid editor of the page you created? or are you associated with any of the subject you have written an articles in Wikipedia? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not getting paid to edit anything on wikipedia. I am doing this on a volunteer basis out of a personal interest in the subject matter. I am not associated with the subject matter in any professional capacity. My interest in OzPolitic is also personal/hobby.
For a short staffed volunteer organisation, you are very thorough. You are the second admin to ask me about OzPolitic. Is this draft space thing a new development? Last time I added a page this did not happen.
I have added the column of references. I understand there is a way to automatically combine repeated references, but can't figure it out.
Oz freediver (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, the "other pages" I mentioned are existing ones that already have information on this topic. See the Derryn Hinch discussion page for more info. Oz freediver (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Oz freediver Thanks for replying so quickly. I asked the questions above as any editor who has a conflict of interest in regardless by association (as a friend, colleague, family member, marketing agent and ect), or who is paid to write articles in Wikipedia need to disclosure in the user page and article talk page. Do note, I read through the page in OzPolitic and saw "The articles you see here are from a number of sources and while they obviously represent the strong political views of the authors,......". I need to inform you that article in Wikipedia need to be written in neutral point of view, free of copy right infriegnment and WP:PROMOTION / puffery/promotional words/phrases. Different views, in proportion, as long as they are sourced, would be presented in the article - see WP:DUEWEIGHT. I do recommend you to state you are not a paid editor on your userpage to avoid confusion.
Article created via Article for Creation (AfC), has been establish for a long time (I think 2007, not 100% sure the year) but via New Page was a few years ago. For new editors, they would go through AfC as there is a communication channel would be establish between editors and reviews and editors would get more guidance/comment from reviews. New page is for editors have been edited for sometime and understand basic article creation guidelines. When a unsourced page created in new page, they will be moved to draft to give the editor time to include the sources. Either channel an editor uses, the article still need to be reviewed before they are published in mainspace Wikipedia and to be indexed by search engines. Do note any article which are in mainspace of Wikipedia and deem not notable, will be subject to nominate for deletion even it is accepted by a reviewer and has been in Wikipedia mainspace for years.
You need to name the reference for "combined/repeated" same source use, so the "named ref" could be used again (as many as time as needed time on the "same article". see below (in source editing mode) and the references box.
(1) Normal inline citation[1]
(2) Named ref citation - [2]
(3) Use the named ref again - just add "/" before ">" from the name ref on item 2 above[2]
I have few tasks I need to do later in Wikipedia and if I dont have time to review your article tonight, then I will do it tmr. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Oz freediver I noticed the page has been reviewed and suggested to merge to double resolution. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dickson, Annabelle (2019-04-24). "Theresa May faces backlash over plans to allow Huawei into 'non-core' networks". POLITICO. Retrieved 2019-04-24.
  2. ^ a b Business, Michelle Toh, CNN. "New Zealand and France urge Facebook and Google to do more to kick out terrorists". CNN. Retrieved 2019-04-24. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

About 2019 Pocono 400

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi CASSIOPEIA - it would appear to me that the parent article might be the one with the WP:COPYVIO problems. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58, Greetings. It appears both of them have copyvio issues - see 1 for Pocono Raceway and 2 for 2019 Pocono 400. Your thoughts? cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Szplitz on szplug! Currently looking at an article about a lake on an island off the north shore of Greenland that might be located on the island of Greenland itself, another article that might involve Arbcom sanctions... Update: it's been deleted... I'll have a look, but copyvios aren't my strong suit. Pete AU aka

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58 not sure the above/latest message is meant to be for me..... however, as for your copyvio of the Pocono articles, I have answered on the above. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WP:AFD/USA reads 'This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area.' If a AFD is already in some state deletion sorting, it does not go here too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

WilliamJE Greetings. I place US as I didnt notice Heart resides in Virginia as the info was at the very bottom of the page. My bad. Thanks for the message. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Careful

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you had looked at this draft more carefully, you would have noticed that the individual in question was an elected official at the national level on multiple occasions, and served as a minister in a federal government. The draft is not ready - much of its content is inadequately and/or inappropriately sourced - but it certainly does show notability. DS (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi DragonflySixtyseven Greetings and thank you for the message above. When I reviewed the article, the draft the version is this one, 2 sources were Wikipedia WP:CIRCULAR 1 and 2, 2 sources lead to no articles about the subject 3 and 4 and one lead to an article which the not independent (by his grandchildren) 5 and for such I declined the draft since there is no independent, reliable sources to support/verify the content claimed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Inroads: The Canadian Journal of Opinion

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello: I did not include secondary sources because the coverage was embedded within the Inroads Journal website (the sources of the praises for the journal are all from other newspapers, magazines, and universities). You can verify this at http://inroadsjournal.ca/about/. Otherwise, it's a journal funded by the Canadian government and I don't see why it doesn't deserve to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayluo215 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayluo215 Greetings. Thank you for the question above. The subject is about Inroads (the subject) and when info is obtain from the subject (source) that means it is not a secondary source but primary which makes the source not independent (from the subject) and not reliable (since it is from the subject itself and we could not verify the info claimed). What we need are multiple (at least 3) secondary sources to support the content claimed for verification where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not merely passing mentioned. Get the info as per sources your mentioned on your message above and place them on the draft. Also please see WP:GOLDENRULE for more info. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

UFC on ESPN 3

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

"Pls note that the names are as per sources, so do not change it as there are redirect and double redirect which is affecting more than 100 articles. For ESPN on 3 - if it is boracasted in ESPN+ then just state in the body text and support by source. Thank you."

The event is no longer being called UFC on ESPN 3 by the promotion. Sources (i.e. media) are no longer calling it that. It is now a Fight Night event. You have reverted edits that corrected an incorrect naming convention because it's too much work to fix, which while unfortunate, undermines the point of Wikipedia. Don't leave inaccurate information because fixing it is hard.

Just to further this discussion, and because it needs to be corrected, Tapology and other sites have properly re-labeled this event as UFC on ESPN+ 9, which was done on Wiki as well until you reverted it back.

Saturday 04.27.2019 at 05:30 PM ET U.S. Broadcast: ESPN+ | Prelims: ESPN Name: UFC on ESPN+ 9: Jacare vs. Hermansson

https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/events/57506-ufc-on-espn-3

This needs to be fixed or Wikipedia is out of sync with the entire MMA community. And simple reality. Having invalid information on a wiki entry and having that somehow seen as acceptable by a mod is ludicrous. Anything sourced can be corrected. Better to do it now then wait until the next event and have it snowball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.164.208 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additionally here is the Sherdog.com page, also updated to UFC Fight Night 150.

https://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-Fight-Night-150-Jacare-vs-Hermansson-73337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.164.208 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

216.121.164.208 Greetings. If you search UFC on ESPN 3 and click on the link it will redirect to UFC Fight Night: Jacaré vs. Hermansson which the event is named. Do search on the history page and net, what the event name has been called. Try to search UFC on ESPN+ 1 and UFC Fight Night 143 and both of them will redirect to the actual name of the event UFC Fight Night: Cejudo vs. Dillashaw. UFC does not name the event named when they announced the event, press usually will announced either a fight night or "on espn" (previous when it was broadcasted in Fox would be UFC on Fox xx). For such press create UFC Fight Night xxx for naming of the event before the actual headliner pair is named for the event by UFC. We created the event name as per (sources) press provided for such you would see 'UFC on ESPN+" x and "UFC Fight Night xxx" and will redirect and double redirect to actual event name. Many of the associate bouts would either named by the press UFC on ESPN+ x of UFC Fight Night xxx or UFC (City Name). We added the matchup/bouts accordingly to event names and fighters pages and UFC associated article in Wikipedia. Ultimately all bouts associate with the page will channel back/redirect to the final actual event name which is the page name. This has been done this way in Wikipedia for years. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
None of that changes the fact that you continually reverted edits that were valid. The edits were simply the Fight Night # and ESPN+ # in the body of the article that should not have impacted redirects, as you yourself point out! At this point it seems this is about saving face. I provided two sources that show the accurate information. If this continues to be an issue I would suggest arbitration. Currently the UFC on ESPN 3 card is listed as UFC on ESPN+ 8. Which is correct. It is also UFC Fight Night 150, which is missing. I did not make that update, so clearly, multiple people are aware of this situation. I would advise that you leave the current page intact short of adding the Fight Night #. Which will also need to be adjusted on the other event pages. Or, you know, just have Wikipedia out of sync with sources. Your call.
216.121.164 pls check who redo the redirect and also pls check the sources on events page and all the involved fighters' page. The event pages do no correspond with the bout announce whereby they are sourced. If you click on a fight bout in involved fighter's page which are sourced, now they are not correpond with the souced said page. In Wikipedia content proved by source for verification and not the true - see WP:PROVEIT and Verification. . CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This is becoming comical. The event was changed after many fights were announced. These things happen. It shouldn't be this hard to have them properly updated when Sherdog, Tapology, etc. do the same. UFC on ESPN 3 is now UFC on ESPN+ 8 / UFC Fight Night 150. UFC Fight Night: Jacare vs. Hermansson is also appropriate. Having the events numbered wrong on wiki is bizarre. MMA Junkie stopped calling it UFC on ESPN 3 and is now going by UFC on ESPN+ 8, for example. https://mmajunkie.com/2019/04/ufc-on-espn-3s-augusto-sakai-on-stepping-up-to-fight-andrei-arlovski "UFC on ESPN+ 8 takes place at BB&T Center in Sunrise, Fla. The main card streams on ESPN+ following prelims on ESPN and early prelims on ESPN2."
You are fighting against the tide here. The ESPN+ numbers are actually accurate now, so only the Fight Night #s need be fixed. UFC on ESPN 3 became UFC on ESPN+ 8 / UFC Fight Night 150. UFC Ottawa is UFC on ESPN+ 9 / UFC Fight Night 151. UFC Rochester is UFC on ESPN+ 10 / UFC Fight Night 152. It's simple counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.164.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Pls provide sources to support all the claimed in event pages and fighters bouts to WP:PROVEIT as the guidelines of Wikipedia, (when the sources change themselves, then we change them them in Wikipedia) then you would change all that - see Wikipedia:But it's true!. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please fix this. Pages are locked. Event numbering changed. i.e. https://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-Fight-Night-150-Jacare-vs-Hermansson-73337 https://www.mmamania.com/2019/4/26/18514777/ufc-fight-night-150-new-blood-preview-jacare-souza-thomas-gifford-takashi-sato-ft-lauderdale-mma <-- this card is tonight and Wikipedia is still broken in regards to it. All future events need to be adjusted i.e. https://www.sherdog.com/events/UFC-Fight-Night-151-Iaquinta-vs-Cowboy-73339 however no one can correct this because you have locked the pages.
FYI it should not be hard to correct this on fighter's pages, a very simple edit, which I have no issue doing for the sake of Wikipedia's info remaining valid. There is ample evidence that the event has changed and you do not need an individual source for every single fighter, when there are multiple sources proving the event has changed number. The fact that the Sacramento event was knowingly added with the incorrect Fight Night number when the main English language source listed it as UFC Fight Night 155 is ridiculous. https://www.sherdog.com/news/news/UFC-Returns-to-Sacramento-in-July-153431 - time to fix this.
This has been done, with source. All fighter pages referencing UFC Fight Night: Jacare vs. Hermansson now have a note that the event shifted to ESPN+ / have the correct numbering. Simply add UFC Fight Night 150 to the main page. This can be done for each subsequent event with source with minimal effort, in order to keep Wikipedia accurate.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.1.232 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121


Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Counter vandalism unit academy training

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I was hoping you could train me to be in the counter vandalism unit. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shesaplumper (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #362

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Open request for adminship: BRPever
  • Development
    • Displaying mapframes for geocoordinate on client requires preprocessing by the user (phab:T220122)
    • Fixing cursor jumping to next field and overlapping of menus (phab:T172937)
    • Wikidata a focus issue on grammatical features field (phab:T218229)
    • Add language codes rm-rumgr, rm-sursilv, rm-surmiran, rm-sutsilv, rm-vallader, rm-puter for Lexemes (phab:T210293)
    • Align RTL languages in glosses to right (phab:T203081)
    • Add new monolingual codes: qya + sjn, el-cy, syc, abq, hbo) (phab:)
    • Fix a bug with NewLexeme suggester menu (phab:T199409)
    • Created a dedicated Phab board to help tool builders with the changes on wb_terms
    • More internal work to get the first version of mobile termbox ready for deployment

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 15:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The Wikipedia app for Android now invites users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. [3][4]

Problems

  • Tech News was late last week because of a MassMessage bug. Other newsletters had the same problem. [5]

Changes later this week

  • You will see when you last refreshed the recent changes page. This is so you can see how recent the changes are. [6]
  • When you write a comment in Structured Discussions but have not posted it yet your web browser will save it in local storage instead of session storage. This means you do not lose them even if you close your web browser. Structured Discussions used to be called Flow. [7]
  • You will be able to turn off milestone notifications. Milestone notifications congratulate you when you have made certain numbers of edits. [8]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  •   The Wikidata wb_terms table will be dropped. This will affect some Wikidata tools. They need to be updated. The table has become too big which is causing problems. This will happen on 29 May. You can read more. You can ask for help if you need it.
  •   Wikimedia wikis will soon use a token when you log out. This changes how the API works. Some tools might need to be updated. [9]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit by mistake

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted my edit on Commodore 16 stating it was a disruptive edit and did not appear constructive. I replaced a dead link with the working link to the information and cited the source properly (author, URL, title). If I am not doing the edit properly please let me know. Kc7txm (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Kc7txm Greetings. I reverted this version of your edit - see [10] at Huggle and it will remove all you edits. Please use the "horizontal" Template:Cite Web template with the basic parameters. Let me know anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Clement Spiette

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because there is no source. He is my Great grandfather. I cannot upload a picture of him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoK98 (talk • contribs) 00:03, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

NikoK9 Greetings. This is the edit you made. You deleted reference section and added unsourced content. Info added need to supported by sourced. Since you are related to the subject then you are not encourage to edit the page as you have a conflict of interest. You would provide source and place a WP:Edit request on the article talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Standing by my edit reverson

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

My edit is fine, and you should should have not reverted it. You made a mistake. The section was badly sourced. If someone wants to add back the content in another form, they are welcome to so, but its current form is clearly odious. Historyhermann1993 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Historyhermann1993 Greetings. You removed sourced content as you think it is not elongquently written - see here [11] and that is disruptive. If it is not well-written then copy edit to a better form and not delete the content. If you want to remove and reinsert on other section of the page, then state that in the edit summary. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I did re-insert most of the information into another section of the article, specifically the one about current approaches to appraisal. It is funny you make a spelling error when talking about something that is not well written. That is telling. Please do something else with your life rather than annoying other people.Historyhermann1993 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Historyhermann1993 I saw, and you stated that in the edit summary this time. All editors in Wikipedia are volunteers that include you and I, without us, Wikipedia would not have content, and editors would vandalize articles. Thank you for spotting my spelling mistakes. You have good eyes. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Historyhermann1993 You stated in the edit summary stated this is for your school project, presumably the assignment is due on end of May. Please note anyone can make edits in Wikipedia and no one own any articles in Wikipedia. You version of edits might be changed by other editors. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually the school project is due before the end of May. Sure, anyone can make edits and I don't own the article but I do see it as an article to steward as a new member of the archival profession. Plus, no one really edits that article anyway. After looking at other comments on this talk page, you clearly are a bit of a jerk, so I don't feel any sympathy for you.Historyhermann1993 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Historyhermann1993 I informed you in good well, so you would not be surprised if you find your edits have changed as you stated this is your school project. I am one of vandal fighters in Wikipedia, we the vandal fighters received many unpleasant messages as many new editors might not know the Wikipedia guidelines and upset when we revert their edits or placing warnings on the talk page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I get that. But, no one really cares about that page, just like no one cares about other pages I've edited in the past. Please, if you are going to reverse vandalism, do it on a page that really matters, not something obscure like archival appraisal that no one outside the profession could care about.Historyhermann1993 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Historyhermann1993 Good that you understand. All pages matter to Wikipedia. Happy editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

  • Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
  • The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
  • They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

  • Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
  • The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
  • Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter Jones (rugby league, Balmain)

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hiya, The Peter Jones I created is a different person to the Peter Jones who played for North Queensland who already has an article. The Peter Jones I made played for Balmain in the 1960s and 1970s. Sully198787 (talk)

Sully198787 Good day. Thanks for replying. Your source of Peter Jones (rugby league, Balmain) - here still point to Peter Jones who played for Cowboy North Queensland. Mind to change it, so I could review it? Thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Sully198787 Thank you for updating the ref. Reviewed. Happy editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

RE:List of United States tornadoes in May 2019 moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to note that monthly tornado lists are project pages for WP:SEVERE. I added the page to keep things systematic, as we are in May. Several tornadoes have been reported already, and we are merely waiting for damage surveys to come in. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

TornadoLGS Greetings. Ok when you add the tornadoes/event and supported with inline citation (sources), then pop back here and let me know so I will review it and publish in mainspace. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi CASSIOPEIA I'm interested on learning about Counter-Vandalism, so I would like to ask if you're available to train me? Thank you. Sophiajoanne (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Sophiajoanne Greetings. I had a look at the contribution log and find have not done much vandalism work and wonder what spark your interest in this area? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually I had been thinking over for the past few months whether I should take up on learning about Counter-Vandalism because I do see occasionally there're maybe some suspected vandalism done by some users during my regular edits articles. So this sparks my interest in learning how to counter vandalism to improve articles on Wikipedia. Sophiajoanne (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sophiajoanne Thank you for interest in fighting vandalism in Wikipedia. Please note that there are many editors who were interested in counter vandalism course and abundant the program mid way due to they do not enticipate the amount of effort/time needed in reading the program material, assigned "homework" and exams requirements . The editor would progress through the course work at their own time. It depends how much free time an editor spend their time in Wikipedia, generally, it would take an editor 2 months to finish the course. So do prepare yourself on lots of reading and homework if you intend to proceed with the program. Let me know and I will set up a sub page for you where we could use the sub talk page as the Q&A of the course if there is any. I would suggest to give it a go but do let me know. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm keen to give it go on the programme. Thank you CASSIOPEIA. Sophiajoanne (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sophiajoanne. Good to know and welcome CVUA. Please enable WP:Twinkle if you havent. Go to the Gadgets section of your Preferences page and tick the box and save the edit (at the the bottom of the list of gadgets). Twinkle report vandalism, warn the editors, page protection, CSD, talk back, welcome the editor, AfD an article and etc. I have created a sub page for you for this program and see here User:CASSIOPEIA/CVUA/Sophiajoanne for your first assignment. Once you have read the reading material and done the assigment, then ping me. I will review and make necessary comments. Kindly revert if you have further questions of my comment if not let me know you are ready for the second assignment. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Artist's sort

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Just a heads up that the "artists" deletion sort is not for musical or theatrical artists. It's just for visual artists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP ok thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
If you can go over and look at the definition for the artist's sort page, it specifically says no musical artists... so the one you just sorted there is not applicable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP ok thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you, and continued help? -Howard Dill

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks you for helping to Get Howard Dill posted on Wiki

I have Photo of Howard his Daughter has sent me and given permission to post online, can I email them to you or post them here?

I have her permision to use them.

in the email from her.

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael212427 (talk • contribs) 05:25, May 3, 2019 (UTC)

Michael212427 Hi Michael, Greetings. Thank you for the questions above and I am always here to help. II saw you have uploaded some photos and they would be deleted soon. There are 2 issues here. see below and click on the blue highlighted texts for more info.
  1. Copyright violation (Copyvio) - Only editor who is the "copyright holder - the photographer who took the photos) would upload the photos into WikiMedia which the copyright holder needs irrevocably agree to release the photos for anyone to use to use the photos under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. The issue here is that you are not the copyright holder, even Howard's daughter gave you the permission to use the photo. If Howard's daughter is the copyright holder then she could upload the photos into WikiMedia and subsequently could be used in Howard Dill article.
  2. Conflict of Interest (COI) - since you have contacted Howard's daughter, I assume you know the Howard or have some kind a affiliation with him (as a friend, college, worked with him in any events in the past and etc), and if is so, then you have a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia do not encourage any editor who has COI to edit/create on the affected page as it is hard for the COI editor to maint neutral point of view when editing/add content to the article. You need to declare you COI on (1) your user page (click here User:Michael212427) and (2) on the article talk page ( on Howard Dill's talk page - click Talk:Howard Dill. The instructions would be found on WP:DISCLOSURE.
Let me know anything else I could help and Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Can you help with getting these images of Horard on the page? I have permission from Diana Dill to use them? If tyhere a Creative commons form i can get her to sign? or how do I get her fathers photos on the page? Michael M— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael212427 (talk • contribs) 02:10, May 4, 2019 (UTC)
Michael212427 I had answered your question/ request on my message above. Pls disclosed you COI.Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~)..Thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

List of VeggieTales Books

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Can I bring back the article Draft:List of VeggieTales books as a real article with at least 2 sources. JATheEditor (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

JATheEditor Hi, Good day. For stand a lone list article, we need independent, reliable sources just like any other article - see WP:STAND. Group sources are acceptable and source can be in any languages. We requirement significant coverage ( 3-5 sources which are both independent and relaile) where by the source talk about the subject in depth and in length. Once you have provide the inline citation (sources), then submit the article for review. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Does it have to be a draft? -- JATheEditor (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
JATheEditor Hi , the current stage of the article does not have any independent, reliable sources to support the content, for such it will not be approved to merit a page in the mainspace. Pls see WP:GOLDENRULE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA What if I added 5 citations? -- JATheEditor (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
JATheEditor If you added 5 indepedent, reliable citations which talk about the subjects in the list directly and in lenght and indept, then click the submit button for review and if it is acceptable, then it will publish in the mainspace. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Then why can't it be a real article now? -- JATheEditor (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
JATheEditor Because the content claimed has not yet been supported by independent reliable sources and the notability can NOT be established. Pls re-read my message above and click on all the blue highlighted text and read the detail info and also pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Why can it NOT be established, I added 5 sources.
JATheEditor This is your draft article Draft:List of VeggieTales books and not sources have been added. The last editor is me - see HERE]. Once you have added the sources, then click the submit button. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Did you see the article I made? -- JATheEditor (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thought I had included all the info needed when I mentioned the fascinating book I had read about Earl Robert, favorite of King James I, and how he and his wife Lady Francis were accused of killing a former friend of his in the tower. It's called "The Poison Bed", it was published and released this year, and I got it at my local branch of the Brooklyn Public Library. It should be available at your own public library or still be on sale at your local bookstore if you want to check it out. What other citation do I need? I was only trying to add to the entry about Earl Robert with this fascinating work of fiction. 108.46.153.213 (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeker Gal— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.153.213 (talk) 02:59, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

108.46.153.213 Good day. I had sent you a message on your talk page and inform you why your edit has been reverted as you didnt provide a source. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution." - Pls see WP:BURDEN. You are welcome to add back the content as long as you could provide a inline citation (source) which is relaible, indepedent. For inline citation info and instructions pls see referencing. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, Cassiopeia, I suppose you're a human being, not a robot. I read the message you left below my comment about the instance of prank/vandalism. I consider it uninformed.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to UFC 239, you may be blocked from editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to UFC Fight Night: Iaquinta vs. Cowboy. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You are barking under a wrong tree. It is the user Sherdogger who vandalized a page, and my message was a reminder. Your comments should be directed to Sherdogger who I responded to. Please, get your facts straight before you make unwarranted threats like this. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 16:57, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

Leiduowen Hi Greeting. I believe you are mistaken as the messages were not for you. If you look at your talk page history log see here I have not place any message on your talk page. The messages were for user:108.16.40.191 - see history talk page log here here where the IP user made edits, here -1 and here -2 (this is the event name - -3, which I place the messages on the IP talk page - see here - 4. You have even place a message to the IP stating "Why are you doing this? Just for fun?" see -5. By the way "Sherdogger" is not the user name but the "edit summary" which was placed by the IP user in the edits they made. I guess you were looking at the user 108.16.40.191 IP talk page instead of your talk page. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassiopeia/Archive_20&oldid=946020812"