User talk:Darkwind/Archive 11
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
You recently added a protection that has since expired - there is more trouble (see history). There is currently an open RfC. All I ask is that the RfC be allowed to close before we add in controversial and possible BLP material. It should be consensus to add, not consensus to delete. We've got an editor who is basically ignoring the RfC and ignoring !votes by any editors who are not "new to the topic". He is telling people their !votes don't count because they are not "new to the topic". It's bizarre. -- GreenC 20:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. —Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mnnlaxer and Green Cardamom:
Please don't have this argument on my talk page. Go elsewhere.As for the article itself, it is clear edit warring of some form is going on, which is why I protected it again. I am not otherwise participating in this dispute. —Darkwind (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mnnlaxer and Green Cardamom:
User:Solhjoo
Please See this User Contributions. he moves West Azerbaijan Province to West Azerbaijan is Kurdistan!! and East Azerbaidjan Province to Old Kurdistan!! 26 June, 2015. to Warning on your behalf doesnot attention.SaməkTalk 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Plz see to the editing. doesnot observance civility--SaməkTalk 20:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to personally thank you for your help with the page The Beast in the East, as your assistance was much needed. I just wanted to point your attention to one form of vandalism on the page that I was unable to undo before the page was protected. On the match card, one person changed one of the wrestlers to a different one providing no reference for the update. This type of thing happens quite often on wrestling pages. They replaced the wrestler Diego with Samoa Joe. I don't know specifically who can edit the page and who can't but I was hoping that since you were the one who put it in place, you'd be able to make this one change. I'm not asking you to take my word for it that this is vandalism, you can simply check the reference listed next to the match as the person who made the change never removed the original reference. It's the final match of the section. Additionally, on the fourth match on the card, a user replaced Dolph Ziggler with Randy Orton once again providing no reference for the change. Funkatastic (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. @Funkatastic: Going forward, you can use {{edit protected}} on the article's talk page (until the protection expires in 48 hours). —Darkwind (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Dine Alone Page Inaccuracies
"This edit has numerous problems and does not improve the article. See talk page before re-adding this material."
Could you please further explain "numerous problems"? Edits to this page include more correct citations than to the previous page, and all information is pulled from Dine Alone Records press releases, interviews with owner Joel Carriere, their official website, etc.
If you would like to correct this page - please utilize the information that is being inputted rather than continuously undoing the edits. The page was outdated, bands listed were incorrect, and references / citation links didn't lead to active websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelynnrennie (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jocelynnrennie: Did you look at the talk page of the article like I asked? I explained the problems with the edit there. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on user talk and article talk pages by typing ~~~~ (that's four of the tilde ~ key) at the end of your message. —Darkwind (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
MigrationWatch UK
Hi Darkwind. You'll probably recall protecting the MigrationWatch UK article following my report of a user repeatedly adding unsourced material. The protection has now expired, and the editor has resumed the same behaviour. Do you have any suggestions for what can be done? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: I've blocked him for a day to stop the disruption and hopefully get his attention. If his behavior continues, please let me know and I'll block him indefinitely. —Darkwind (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I rather suspect that they know that they're breaking the rules, but are continuing regardless. I also presume that this edit is by the same person, logged out. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: It gets difficult to assume good faith sometimes... I've blocked the IP for a week and extended Augenblink to 60 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for dealing with this, Darkwind! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- We now have 95.131.248.194 making the same edit, with the same edit summaries claiming to be fixing vandalism. PS: Please tell me if you'd prefer not to deal with this, and I'll post on the edit warring noticeboard. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for dealing with this, Darkwind! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: It gets difficult to assume good faith sometimes... I've blocked the IP for a week and extended Augenblink to 60 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I rather suspect that they know that they're breaking the rules, but are continuing regardless. I also presume that this edit is by the same person, logged out. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: I've protected the page for a week and rangeblocked the new IP. I don't mind helping take care of this. —Darkwind (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Darkwind. The user appears to be signaling their intention to resume reverting in the name of "removing vandalism" once the article protection has expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. That's an incredibly comprehensive explanation, and the editor can be in no doubt as to what they're doing wrong now. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just hope it helps. I know I have a strong tendency to get wordy and it makes people's eyes glaze over... —Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that Augenblink has replied to your comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- /snort/ Clearly, he's impossible to reason with. —Darkwind (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The unsourced additions have resumed now that the page protection has expired. I have raised this at WP:AN/EW, because the user clearly has no intention of paying attention to the rules about use of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- And the socking resumes... Cordless Larry (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- The unsourced additions have resumed now that the page protection has expired. I have raised this at WP:AN/EW, because the user clearly has no intention of paying attention to the rules about use of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- /snort/ Clearly, he's impossible to reason with. —Darkwind (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that Augenblink has replied to your comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I just hope it helps. I know I have a strong tendency to get wordy and it makes people's eyes glaze over... —Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. That's an incredibly comprehensive explanation, and the editor can be in no doubt as to what they're doing wrong now. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of issues
| As I said previously, another user's talk page is not the best place for you two to be going at it. This discussion appears to be unproductive at this point, so please continue elsewhere if you must. —Darkwind (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Darkwind, I thought I would get back to you on this and also attract your attention to something else unrelated that remains unresolved. With both it looks like both attempts at a resolution have failed and remain at an impasse. (1) As started on the Edit Warring noticeboard, I took your advice and took it to WP:BLPN. That debate is here. As you can probably see, the others are completely ignoring the core point about them needing to prove the source they are promoting is reliable. They prefer to divert to me needing to prove it's not and that's not the burden of onus under BLP policy. Whether or not I'm using OR to prove it's not I think is either not relevant or it is in fact allowed (as I haven't used it to ADD material to the article) simply because it's why I know the source is either unreliable or just plain wrong. Hence the impasse. An admin judgment is needed on the issue, and I can't take the source to the Reliable Sources noticeboard because the dispute is over interpretation of the whole page, not just the remark being relied upon. (2) Some time ago I had a dispute over whether or not WWE Global Warning was shown on pay per view in Asia. This issue I took to the NPOV Noticeboard - here. I firmly believe that the source was manipulated and it should be blacklisted specifically if possible - given that in general the source is listed as reliable. This is an older issue and I have been waiting for admin intervention on it for awhile as you can see. I've already rescued it from archiving twice. Sorry for the long message. Hopefully you can either help out yourself, or point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone else's talk page is probably not the best place for you guys to be having your discussion, but at least you're talking and not edit warring, which is good.
That being said, Curse of Fenric (t c), there is no specific Wikipedia policy or guideline that I can think of that prohibits communication between authors of sources and editors. The only violation I can possibly think of is purely ethical, assuming that you are correct about the PPV broadcast of this program in Asia and somehow OldSkool01 (t c) convinced Meltzer to lie about it on his site, then we used that site to support incorrect information in the article. That would be bad from an ethical standpoint but there's no specific Wikipedia policy that would be violated -- and those are also huge assumptions. This is why nobody took action on your NPOV noticeboard report; it's not really a violation of NPOV Without any kind of concrete proof that you are correct, you have to understand that to those of us without any personal knowledge of the subject, it looks like you are asking us to make a huge leap in logic and an assumption of bad faith on OldSkool01 (t c)'s part, which is not something most uninvolved admins would be willing to do. At this point, Fenric, you're starting to look like http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png, which is why I advised you to let it go. Also, I never answered your question about having a source on Buddy Murphy for WWE Performance Centre. Having no personal knowledge of the subject it's hard to say, but in general if you genuinely believe in good faith that his having trained there is non-controversial, you could probably add it without a source. However, given the situation here, I don't know that I would suggest that in this particular case. You're complaining that the source other people want to use is not sufficient, so it would come across as hypocritical to add different information into the same infobox field without a (better) source yourself. —Darkwind (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
|
"Official" talk page ds alert?
Hello. Thank you again for your efforts to promote a collaborative environment. At EWN, you recently mentioned that you were adding "official" ds alerts to a talk page. My humble read of WP:AC/DS is that the alert templates are available to all editors. My understanding of the idea behind ds alerts was to offer a non-accusatory, low impact mechanism for an editor to reminding fellow editors of our behavioral standards. I have added the brief version of the ds alert to the talk pages of articles that were obviously within the scope of the the discretionary sanctions areas. I would like to better understand this distinction you mention between official and unofficial ds alerts. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @HughD: By using the word "official" I was not referring to any alerts others may have left. Rather, I meant that individual editors are not considered to be "aware" of the sanctions unless they receive a {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page. The mention of sanctions on a noticeboard, such as when I mentioned the sanctions in my closing, is not an "official" alert in that sense. Also, the alerts you left previously for some of the same users were for different, possibly less strongly related topic areas. An alert needs to be left for a user about a given specific topic area before they are considered "aware" of discretionary sanctions in that topic area. Perhaps "formal" would have been a better word choice as opposed to "official". —Darkwind (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Criteria for identifying an editwar?
Thank you again for your efforts to promote a collaborative environment. At EWN, you recently concluded a report of repeated removal of a WikiProject banner in part saying it was not edit warring. Respectfully, without questioning your assessment, upon reflection I find I do not understand how it is not edit warring. I would like to better understand this. Is it because it is talk page activity and not article space? Sorry for the cross-post of this question from ANI. Thanks again for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 July 2015 (PST)
Thanks
Thanks for this one. It looks like a couple of hours of rattling his cage (and nearly everything he's contributed) has, at long last, got him to listen and interact with the community. We can only hope it continues that way. Bazj (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Buddy Murphy
Just to separate that other thing, are you able - seeing as the page is protected - to add the source I gave previously? If not can you advise what to do at this point? Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Curse of Fenric: Use {{edit protected}} on the talk page of the article. —Darkwind (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! And once that's done I think it could be okay to unblock the page, although maybe waiting a few more days for a reaction on the talk page to that would be prudent. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like Gary and the IP's are trying to bargain that PCW link into being admitted and totally ignoring your advice on BLP. I need some more advice - is it time to escalate this within dispute resolution? Or do I have another option available? Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll watch the talk page, but at this point if they continue to argue DRN is probably not an option. I'll consider RSN and ANI dependent on what actually happens and how. I appreciate your support in this one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Your AN3 Block
You recently blocked KnightWarrior25 for edit war at AN3 in this report, he's reverted back the same edit right away after coming out of his block [1]. He's definitely not here to help the project. I've updated at AN3 but it's probable that no one will notice it given that the heading now already states a (now expired) block. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @TopGun: I'll look into it momentarily. FYI, I personally think it would be fine for you to change the header back to (Result: ) if you need to "reopen" a report that's still on the main page. I'm not sure whether there's a broader consensus for non-admins to do that, though. —Darkwind (talk)
- Looks like he's already been blocked indefinitely by another admin. —Darkwind (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
- News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF
- In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology
- WikiProject report: Able to make a stand
- Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I.
- Traffic report: We're Baaaaack
- Technology report: Technical updates and improvements
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This IP, however, seems to be clearly disruptive. They're making terrorist threats on their talk page. Any way those edits could be hidden from public view and the IP's talk page access could be revoked? :) Amaury (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
AN3
Can you take a second look at this? The editor in question seems to be trying very hard to prove that I was wrong to defend them, with a long string of category removals that were explicitly a WP:POINT violation, as well as taunting another editor. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @VQuakr: My decision in regards to the report filed at the noticeboard is valid as far as I can tell; he did violate 3RR but is no longer edit warring on Jurassic World. An admin reviewing and closing an ANEW thread typically only looks at the edit history of the page that is mentioned in the report, and does not typically take time to review the editor's behavior on other pages.
- If you believe his behavior elsewhere is edit warring, open a new thread at ANEW with the appropriate diffs. If you believe he is disruptively editing elsewhere, or otherwise violating policy or the spirit of collaborative editing, open an WP:ANI thread. I did leave him a note to avoid comments like the one he left on InedibleHulk's talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
AN3
Thank you, how do you do do an RFC? is that better than a dispute resolution? CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @CrazyAces489: In this particular case, I would not recommend an RfC. A Request for Comment is usually best when it's a fairly simple issue where there's a disagreement or lack of consensus. In this case, the edits that you are going back and forth over are not a particularly simple matter, so if you do an RfC, many people might see it and say "heck, I don't know" and not comment at all. I think it would better help you to use a form of dispute resolution where someone can become familiar with the issue to help you both resolve the problem. For example, the dispute resolution noticeboard might be a good place to start. However, you can read about the different available forms of dispute resolution here to see what you think would work best for you. —Darkwind (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1RR?
Thank you again for your patience. I am optimistic 1RR will help, but I have never operated under 1RR. I have questions about how 1RR is measured. As you know, I am working to taking Americans for Prosperity to GA, and as you know one GA criteria is completeness of coverage with respect to reliable sources. Last week, so much well-reference, neutral, noteworthy content and reliable sources were blanked that anything worth adding at this point is technically a reversion in the sense of a restoration of a deletion.
Does restoring content deleted last week count as a revert toward 1RR?
A series of consecutive edits, uninterrupted by another editor, counts is one edit, as per usual?
Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @HughD: Yes, it's basically exactly the same as 3RR except the limit is one revert instead of three. Phrased another way, under 3RR it's your fourth revert in a 24 hour period that will get you "in trouble", while it's the second revert in 24 hours that is forbidden under 1RR. This does mean that re-inserting material that someone deleted last week would count as your only permissible revert within the next 24 hours. Adding new material that has never been in the article before would not count as a revert of any kind.
- The way "around" this is to discuss changes on the talk page and obtain consensus for the change. If all comments are supportive or there's otherwise a clear consensus on the talk page for your change, it's not likely that performing the change would get you into trouble under 1RR. This does mean that 1RR can slow the editing progress of an article quite a bit if you feel that you have to wait for a consensus discussion on every change which could possibly be considered a revert. That's kind of the point, and it's also the reason I applied the restriction as temporary.
- Also, I can pretty much assure you that until the article stabilizes, GA status will not be awarded. As it is, if I were reviewing the article today, I would almost certainly fail it against criterion 5. I am hopeful that this page restriction will help stabilize the article toward that GA criterion. —Darkwind (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Right now criteria 3 is a bigger problem than 5. When you asked for comment on 1RR, I expressed support and asked for a reversion of last week's undiscussed section and content blanking in conjunction with 1RR. The recent undiscussed section blanking and content blanking has been critiqued at article talk by fresh eyes, please see, and the new eyes immediately noted that the article is severely non-neutral after the all but complete blanking of Koch-related content. Respectfully I request that you consider how ignoring an entirely reasonable request for a revert in conjunction with 1RR rewarded last week's undiscussed major section blanking and content blanking. Respectfully I am not sure you were fully aware of the RS on the subject and the state of the article with respect to RS at the point when you imposed 1RR. 1RR in conjunction with a one week revert is a much better approach than 1RR alone. Thank you for your kind consideration of this. Hugh (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You asked for comment on 1RR at 03:47, 30 June. I expressed support for 1RR in conjunction with a revert at 14:21, 30 June. A revert in conjunction with page edit restriction is a valid approach to avoid possibly rewarding disruptive editting. You did not respond to the reasonable request for a revert in conjunction with the 1RR. You imposed 1RR at 18:02, 30 June. Respectfully, I do not feel this allowed sufficient time for due diligence in evaluating the reasonable request for a revert in conjunction with 1RR. After 1RR, a new editor stopped by and removed content which was orphaned by the undiscussed reliable source purge by the reported editor. The damage to the article from the undiscussed reliable source purge is being compounded by your declining to consider a reasonable request for a revert in conjunction with 1RR. Respectfully I request that you reconsider your decision to ignore the reasonable request for a revert in conjunction with 1RR. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- When I first asked you for a revert in conjunction with 1RR, I thought the request was reasonable and I thought I was due at least the respect of a response. When I asked you here on your talk to reconsider, I also thought the request was reasonable and I deserved the respect of a response. Thank you for your time. Hugh (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- @HughD: You seem to be under a misconception regarding admin actions. Generally, when an administrator performs an administrative action like protecting a page or applying a page restriction, they do not modify the content of the page in place when the action is done. See, for example, this part of the protection policy, which says
"When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons."
A similar philosophy applies to other restrictions like 1RR.
- @HughD: You seem to be under a misconception regarding admin actions. Generally, when an administrator performs an administrative action like protecting a page or applying a page restriction, they do not modify the content of the page in place when the action is done. See, for example, this part of the protection policy, which says
- I am not about to take a position in this content dispute by determining which version is "preferred" or has the correct sources. While the protection policy does suggest that restoring a "stable" version is OK, this dispute on Americans for Prosperity has been going on for months, and I have neither the time nor the desire to find a "stable" version to revert to. If you think the page needs to be reverted to a particular version, then do so—and that is your one revert for the day.
- Furthermore, I had not replied because it feels like you are trying to drag me into this content dispute by trying to get me to judge which is the better version of the page, and I do not want to be a part of this dispute. I acted as an uninvolved administrator to put a stop to the disruption, and I intend to remain uninvolved. —Darkwind (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Respectfully, I continue to feel I was due the simple respect of a reply, however brief, if not on the substance of my request, at least on my appeal options. I apologize if my posting here on your talk page appears to be critical of a lack of due diligence in your resolution of the EWN, of course that is not my intention. I understand you are perfectly within you rights to ignore fellow editors at your discretion. I am not trying to drag you into anything. Thank you in advance for your advice. Hugh (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Message
117.223.234.135 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Please edit missing citation topic.
Problem user
Greetings! I noticed in June you had blocked Pistolplay (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for frequent, uncited changes to genres and associated acts without notes to explain edits. I added a lvl. 4 warning, but wanted you to take a look since you had warned them of indefinite block the next time they did it! Seems to be a problem again.
Thanks2
Thank you for the reasonable sanction, I have no doubt I was edit warring and the following is not intended to excuse that or appeal the sanction. Do you have any advice for the right approach to that sort of matter in the future? Two editors who tag team were going against BRD and against the sway of the talk page (which hadn't reached consensus) claiming an image of a living person showed something unverifiable. I got frustrated and in the end just kept reverting pointing to the discussion which the person doing the bulk of the re-reverts wasn't engaging in. Is there a right way I should have responded to that? SPACKlick (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @SPACKlick: When I examined the ANEW case, I looked at your interactions on the article and its talk page. I haven't really looked at the context of your interaction with these editors on other pages, so you might have already tried some of these "tools". I always recommend the following ways to engage with your fellow editors when there's a disagreement, in order of "escalation":
- 1. Post on the article's talk page (which you did)
- 2. A direct message/appeal to the editor you're in disagreement with (or the "ringleader", if it's a "group") on their talk page
- 3(a). A request for help at WP:3O (if and only if it's you against one other person)
- 3(b). A request or a thread at a subject-specific noticeboard if applicable, such as WP:BLPN for BLP issues, WP:NPOVN for POV disagreements, WP:RSN for source reliability questions, etc.
- 3(c). A request for informal mediation at WP:DRN
- 3(d). Open an RfC.
- 4. Post at a board requesting some kind of admin intervention, such as WP:ANI for general disputes/misconduct, WP:ANEW for edit warring, WP:AE for discretionary sanctions violations, etc.
- 5. Request a formal resolution to the situation at one of Wikipedia's "supreme courts": for content disputes, where there are no misconduct allegations, formal mediation by the Mediation Committee, or for conduct disputes/allegations, open a request for arbitration with ArbCom.
- You don't need to do all of these things in every dispute, of course, but it's a good idea to try something farther down the list if earlier options don't result in productive discussions. Also, it's important to remember that it is not necessary, and generally a bad idea, to "escalate" a dispute purely because the discussion isn't going the way you want. If you post on the article's talk page about something, and five editors respond and say "no, that's a bad idea", then a consensus has formed and it's against you. Don't escalate that as a dispute; just realize you've lost that "battle", accept the consensus, and move on. —Darkwind (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice I will try and remember it when my buttons are pushed. Also, wrt the sanction in place. Can I edit image captions? I want to be careful here because it does relate to the same content dispute but doesn't affect the image itself and I don't want to violate the sanction. SPACKlick (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @SPACKlick: Altering, adding, or removing image captions would not be a violation of the restriction. However, I strongly encourage you to be very prudently cautious in your edits to captions, as it could possibly be perceived by others as "testing" the limits of the sanction.
- I suggest that if you make a bold change to a caption, and it gets reverted, go to the talk page and discuss. Avoid reverting to re-do your change to the caption without material progress in a talk page discussion.
- Also, if someone tries to complain that caption editing is included in the sanction I applied, please feel free to show them this diff that I did not mean to include captions in the restriction. —Darkwind (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at this BLP article again. A user continually adds material that is under active disagreement in an RfC. 7 people have voiced concern about including this material and 4 want to include it. WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." and that burden has not been met, yet, as the RfC is still open. Basically it's a slow motion edit war instigated by this editor who can't wait for the RfC to conclude. -- GreenC 18:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 July 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation annual plan released, news in brief
- In the media: Wikimania warning; Wikipedia "mystery" easily solved
- Traffic report: The Empire lobs back
- Featured content: Pyrénées, Playmates, parliament and a prison...
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the articles about funding can be disqualified. If they were just a paragraph or two long and about the funding only, then I would agree that they are insufficient to establish notability. But this article from Business Standard goes into detail about KartRocket's history.
In addition, there are two non-funding articles mentioned by Andrewjohn39: 1 from Firstpost and 2 from the business news organization VCCircle. Please reconsider your deletion. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Coverage of funding is WP:ROUTINE — every company that gets more than a small dollar/Rs amount will have articles about gaining the funding; this does nothing more than prove the existence of the company. That's why it doesn't count toward notability, not because of its length.
- I was not persuaded by the keep arguments that KartRocket passes GNG or CORP, and thus the delete arguments carried more weight. If you disagree with my reading/judgement of the consensus of this discussion, deletion review is open to you.
- Also, please remember that even if we assume two articles is passing GNG, the GNG is not a guarantee that we should have or keep an article about a particular subject. In a particular deletion discussion, the consensus might still be to delete an article because the subject is not sufficiently notable or significant. —Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13#KartRocket. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BiKaz
I had to do this. Since you blocked them recently for these exact edits, I thought you'd want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ogress: I didn't block this editor for the content of the edits, I blocked him because he violated 3RR. If he's edit warring again, tell me which article and I'll take a look, or you can post at WP:ANEW. —Darkwind (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. He's on his second revert for the same material without going to talk at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. He has made zero attempt to discuss the issue, although I went on the talk page tonight. I have not reviewed the page contents myself except that they seemed extremely partisan. The entire page is a trainwreck of shrieking accusations, denunciations of takfir (heresy) and partisanship of a level I have rarely encountered here at Wikipedia; I wish I had three strong editors at my back to beat sense into it because right now it's a nightmare. Ogress smash! 05:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TRIZ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Closed section
I hope it's okay to add a new subsection to the section you closed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Possible block evasion
Thank you for blocking SimpsonsMan1234 yesterday, but I fear he may have continued to violate the rules even so. Very shortly after SimpsonsMan was blocked, this user reverted to SimpsonsMan's version of the Rare Replay page. His only other edit was trying to remove my report from the noticeboard, claiming "no rules were broken", much like SimpsonsMan. When this was undone, another user with a nearly identical IP reverted again, this being their only edit to date. Both were done while SimpsonsMan was still in his block period. Seems a little suspicious in my opinion. Can you please look into this? -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Given that he reverted that IP almost immediately, it's more likely to be "meat puppetry" than anything else. That would be a possible IP range for him if he were to edit logged out, as he has self-disclosed that he lives in Australia, but neither the evidence nor the disruptive behavior is strong enough to take admin action on. —Darkwind (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts in resolving the above "move" request. Much appreciated. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright and Categories
TL;DR : Can a Category violate copyright ?
There's plenty of advice on the copyright of text and of images, but none that I can find on categories.
I picked up St Mary's Church, Haddenham at new page patrol and, by way verifying its notability, added a ref :
- Jenkins, Simon (2000). England's Thousand Best Churches. Penguin. ISBN 9780140297959.
Would a category, say Category:Jenkin's 100 best churches, to include those churches violate his copyright? I'm guessing that creating a Wikipedia:Books probably would.
Similarly, for the Baedeker guides, especially in light of the Baedeker raids? Or Pevsner for Pevsner Architectural Guides?
I'm not 100% sure I want to create the category yet, but I am sure I don't want to unwittingly blunder into copyvio. Thanks. Bazj (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking about this, as it's quite complex. I'll write up a detailed reply shortly, but we might want to take the conversation to WT:CP where other editors/admins experienced in copyright can weigh in. —Darkwind (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Taken to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Copyright and Categories as suggested. Found a discussion of Lists in the archive there which may shade your thinking. Regards, Bazj (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 July 2015
- Op-ed: On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
- Traffic report: Belles of the ball
- WikiProject report: What happens when a country is no longer a country?
- News and notes: The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania
- Featured content: When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Why I got blocked one month ago.
| User has been blocked again. —Darkwind (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't want to get blocked for 1 month, but I did anyway, I was not abusing, vandalizing, and hurting, I was also just helping NOT SOMETHING BAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Na-What?! I told you! I swear and stopped! I was a very very smart GoAnimator and I can't settle it down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I AM ENGLISH I AM! I DO NOT WANT TO GET BLOCKED AGAIN, FU@K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.14.181 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
My son is grounded for harassing other users
My son (50.82.14.181) was grounded for 3 weeks for harassing and attacking other users. This is his father, should we discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't think there's anything in particular that we would need to talk about, but I must say that he needs a little work on his writing skills before he tries contributing to Wikipedia again -- I had trouble understanding what he was trying to say sometimes. Once he brushes up on his writing a little and learns our verifiability policy (which means he has to cite sources for everything he adds -- just like a research paper), we would welcome him as a contributor to the encyclopedia. —Darkwind (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, we appreciate it.
Waterloo Campaign:Start of hostilities
With the closure of this move request, you seem simply to have counted opions as votes. What is the justifiation of moving the title from a descriptive one to one that incudes a date range part of which predate the Waterloo Campaign? -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS: Neither the nominator, the supporters, nor yourself as the only opposer, made any specific policy-based arguments in favor of or opposing the move, or any particular titles. The nominator's reasoning was that the old title was excessively precise and did not accurately reflect the content of the article. The supporters' reasoning was largely "per nom", or that a suggested title was more clear (e.g. SnowFire's suggestion and reasoning). Your objection was that the suggested new titles were factually inaccurate because hostilities began on 7/15. None of you said anything about any Wikipedia policies that would promote one viewpoint over the other.
- As per WP:CLOSE, the only thing I could have done in this case was to read the discussion and consider each person's opinion more-or-less as a vote:
... the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it ...
(Yes, I know, that's taken out of context, but it's a natural extrapolation to a situation which has no particular controlling policy.)
- My count was three in favor of a move, all supporting the title I used in the closure (Jenks24, SnowFire, SmokeyJoe) and one opposed (yourself). In a discussion that only attracted four participants after 31 days, that's about as clear as consensus gets short of unanimity. If you believe I misread the consensus in the discussion, move review is over that way. —Darkwind (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Additional comment: if you believe I read the consensus correctly but that the consensus itself is against Wikipedia policy or factual accuracy, perhaps you should start a new move request and attract additional editors to discuss the situation. For example, you could post at WikiProject Military history and ask them to opine on the new move request. I think that would be acceptable, and not inappropriate canvassing. —Darkwind (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
75% is not unamity for many decisions on Wikiepdia, and I assuem that I do not have to quote local conensus to you (as we are both experianced editors).
"As I said above, this is a descriptive title. 'Start of hostilities' describes what it is, the date is useful because it defines the scope of what the descriptive titles 'Start of hostilities' means". What in the sentence is not a referelce to policy? Given that the war did not start until 15 of June how does "Waterloo Campaign, 8–15 June" follow policy? -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- PBS: Said this already in the move request, but I still don't understand why you think that "campaign" has such a strict delineation, and why it'd be inaccurate to include the earlier days. Double-checking, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/campaign says "a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war" and "a series of military battles, attacks, etc., designed to produce a particular result in a war". It's an inherently vague term and I don't see why it would necessarily exclude the "operations" described on the earlier dates, and even if it did exclude them, then that just means we should title the article "Maneuverings prior to the Waterloo Campaign, 8-15 June" or the like, since the article indisputably does include content that describes events prior to June 15.
- Anyway, maybe the 3 of us were just crazy and there's some different standard used by historians of the Napoleonic Wars, so I'd definitely recommend soliciting input from WP:MILHIST. SnowFire (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @PBS: I didn't say it was unanimity, I said it was consensus, and the best consensus we could possibly have had in that discussion short of unanimity (numerically speaking). Unanimity is not required (and should not be required) in discussions.
[After] people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best...
... [After] a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action.
— Wikipedia:What is consensus?
- I am not changing my closure based on our discussion here as I do not see where I made a procedural error. Again, you have three options. You can decide to accept my reading of the consensus, and the consensus itself, and drop the matter. Or, if you think I was wrong in my reading of consensus, go to move review. Finally, if you think my evaluation was right but the consensus is against policy, open a new discussion and invite wider participation. I appreciate your courtesy in coming directly to me with your concerns. —Darkwind (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, if you really want my interpretation of the new title in context with policy, here it is. Because the division of information regarding the Hundred Days is based largely on Wikipedia editorial concerns such as article focus and length, the titles of those articles are also a Wikipedia editorial concern, and not primarly a matter of what the sources say about it. That is to say, because we are dividing information and articles in a manner different from how sources may have divided information, we are not turning to sources to find the most common title the way most move discussions do.
- Instead, we are trying to choose the title that best describes the content and focus of the article, which is the lead-up to the Waterloo Campaign involving activities and events specific to that campaign and preparation for it, from 7/8-7/15. The title that was selected in the discussion accurately reflects that with a minimum of reader confusion. —Darkwind (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- As you have quoted an essay, I presume you are familiar with the policy statement on local consensus which applies in this case ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"). The article we are discussing is one of a number of articles that meet the requirements of more detailed articles referred to by a summary article (the Waterloo Campaign). It is a detailed article about the start of the Waterloo Campaign, which is a well known military history term for a campaign that started on 15th June 1815 and involved three armies. There were other campaigns during the Hundred Days (which is not a military campaign but a series of military campaigns and political machinations), but the scope of this detailed article covers the preparation and deployment for the Waterloo Campaign (hence the name). For details of the deployment for all the campaigns one has to look to the article Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days. The article you renamed only details preparations for the Waterloo Campaign.
- Most campaign articles have a start date often they have a start time. Two examples are:
- Russian Campaign "began on 24 June 1812 when Napoleon's Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army." Peperations for this campaign started months before the start date.
- Operation Barbarossa "was the code name for Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II, which began on 22 June 1941" This mentions that preparations had started "By the third week of February 1941".
- Both those campaigns were part of large wars, but as with this campaign it would be incorrect to date the start of those campaigns to days before the start of hostilities, and if someone writes an article about the start of hostilities about those campaigns that it ought to be dated from the first date mentioned in the article?
- Are you seriously suggesting that the dates in the main campaign article (Waterloo Campaign) should be adjusted to cover the period of the Hundred Days, or do you accept that the Waterloo Campaign is a discreet and well known military campaign within the Hundred Days? The reason I ask this is because if you do not know the difference then we have little more to discuss, and if you believe that the two terms are synonymous why did you not name the article Hundred Days: 8–15 June? -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: Okay, look. You are just trying to rehash the discussion here on my talk page. Stop it. Either start a new discussion in an appropriate venue, or drop the subject.
In a final attempt to answer your concerns directly, I did not name it "Hundred Days: 8–15 June" because that title was not proposed during the discussion. Closure is not a super!vote, it is evaluating the arguments and suggestions presented during the discussion only. Regarding your comment on local consensus, there is also Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests...
in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS.
This is my final comment on this discussion. I have been as patient as possible while addressing your concerns because I am expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about [my] Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
I have responded promptly and civilly, and I have justified my actions three times now. You can either choose to accept that justification, or you can choose not to accept it.
I am going to be more blunt now in order to be clear, and because I am starting to lose my patience:
- If you: think that I did something wrong in the closure, or you choose not to accept my justification, then: go away. Go to move review instead.
- If you: think that I did the closure correctly, but the consensus of the participants was wrong, then: go away. Start a new move request instead.
Good day, sir. —Darkwind (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I as pinged for this? I did notice the close included unfortunate wording "PBS was the only one who objected to this title, so consensus is clearly pro-move". PBS's objection is a very poor rationale for consensus the other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- You were not pinged in the sense that I was asking for your input, but I firmly believe if I'm going to talk about other people they should be given the opportunity to know they're being talked about.
- As for that wording in the closure, I'm not really sure why you interpret it as "this one dude's objection is LOL so let's just do the opposite" -- that is totally not what I meant. It was more supposed to be read as "Only one person is objecting, and there was no policy-based argument advanced in his objection, and no obvious policy problems with the suggestion, so it should be done." —Darkwind (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What year was the IMAX logo found/debut in what year?
What did the IMAX logo debut on?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't happen to know that information, but Wikipedia has a reference desk where you can ask for help finding this kind of information. —Darkwind (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
They think the logo debuted on 1970, I don't know if it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
removed lines from Nigella Lawson
Why are Jewish chefs identified as such in Wikipedia but not Christian chefs? The phrase "...and were noted for their luxurious life-style.[15]" is gratuitous and recalls well-worn anti-semitic tropes. Virtually all celebrities are noted for their luxurious life-style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.111.222 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- What are you on about? I've never edited the article Nigella Lawson. —Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
au pair
Hi there, you recently have reverted the au pair summary back to a previous version due to too much commercial. Caapaa and IAPA have again flooded the Australia version with their advertising. Can you revert again please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.172.125 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding brief summaries on William Fullam page
Hello: yes, I will begin using the brief summaries box for each of my entries. Thanks. Stephen C. Berrey, Ph.D. 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[1]
- @SteveMiamiBeach: I think you might have been trying to talk to Pokechu22 (talk · contribs) who is the person who left you the message about edit summaries. —Darkwind (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
References
The Signpost: 22 July 2015
- From the editor: Change the world
- News and notes: Wikimanía 2016; Lightbreather ArbCom case
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015 report, part 1, the plenaries
- Traffic report: The Nerds, They Are A-Changin'
- WikiProject report: Some more politics
- Featured content: The sleep of reason produces monsters
- Gallery: "One small step..."
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
DogukanOdaci continues his disruptive edits in the Turkey article
User:DogukanOdaci continues the same disruptive edits in the Turkey article despite receiving a 24 hour block. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Eliot Higgins 2
I did a non-admin closure of the RfC at Eliot Higgins. So, if you'd like to adjust the protection, please feel free.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: Thank you for letting me know, and for stepping in to do the closure. I didn't feel comfortable doing it myself, having so strongly admonished everyone for the bad behavior on the article. I've unprotected the page. Also, sorry for assuming the editor to close the RfC would be an admin. Bad habit. —Darkwind (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, all's well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: - another editor has alledged that you were asked by Mnnlaxer to close the RfC. Is that true? -- GreenC 13:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Either there was a request, or else I saw that it had been open for a long time and needed to be closed. Probably the latter, as I recall.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem I see you often close RfC. In addition to that editor's comment that Mnnlaxer had contacted you, I also noticed that you and Mnnlaxer were on the same talk page (different threads next to each other) around the same time the RfC was closed. You were posting information about another RfC closure so I assumed Mnnlaxer likely saw you there as someone who closes RfCs and contacted you and since I couldn't find anything in the history assumed it was back channel. And since Mnnlaxer has been known to post non-neutral requests I wasn't comfortable knowing there might have been a pre-close sales attempt. But since you're saying that didn't happen there is nothing to it but I wanted to verify given the evidence. Also, thank you for doing the closure. -- GreenC 17:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. There was no back channel. I tried closing a few RFC's to see how it went, and I hope to do more in the future, time permitting. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem I see you often close RfC. In addition to that editor's comment that Mnnlaxer had contacted you, I also noticed that you and Mnnlaxer were on the same talk page (different threads next to each other) around the same time the RfC was closed. You were posting information about another RfC closure so I assumed Mnnlaxer likely saw you there as someone who closes RfCs and contacted you and since I couldn't find anything in the history assumed it was back channel. And since Mnnlaxer has been known to post non-neutral requests I wasn't comfortable knowing there might have been a pre-close sales attempt. But since you're saying that didn't happen there is nothing to it but I wanted to verify given the evidence. Also, thank you for doing the closure. -- GreenC 17:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Genevieve Naylor
Thank you for approving my Genevieve Naylor article. I know it is brief right now. I will be teaching a group of women at the college where I work how to edit Wikipedia pages this Tuesday afternoon, and we will be adding considerably more info to it, such as info about her career as a fashion photographer, as Eleanor Roosevelt's private photographer, etc. It's a great opportunity to bring some light to this really important photojournalist that otherwise didn't have an article. I was hoping it would be up before Tuesday, and it is, so thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellingCactus (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- @TravellingCactus: That's great! If I may make a request, during your lesson, you can't over-emphasize the importance of two of our five pillars: verifiability and neutral point-of-view. As long as your students can master those two concepts, they can definitely contribute productively to Wikipedia. I hope we'll see some of them as future editors!
- Also, don't forget to sign your posts if you leave a message on a talk page or user talk page, by typing 4 tildes (like ~~~~). —Darkwind (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I work in a library where "verifiability" is our middle name, so no problem there. Thanks, and I'm not good at this code thing yet. TravellingCactus (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
DogukanOdaci continues his disruptive edits in the Turkey article
User:DogukanOdaci continues the same disruptive edits in the Turkey article despite receiving a 60 hour block. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
17:34:31, 28 July 2015 review of submission by 182.237.183.187
That is not true. Reference 6 is an independent reliable source that shows that Arun Shenoy won the Young visionary Award from Indiafrica. Reference 7 shows that Arun Shenoy was an India Innovator Awardee by the Ministry of Science and Technology IIGP.
As I comment, Mr. Arun Shenoy's interview is covered in today's Business Today (India Today) group on Net zero energy building. The independent link is below http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/cleantech-indira-paryavaran-bhawan-india-first-zero-energy-building/1/222090.html 182.237.183.187 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Also refer to independent reference 8 that mentions Arun Shenoy from GIBSS among winners 14.97.120.31 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see that the references have been reordered; the one you refer to as #6 is now #7. That link was unverifiable at the time I reviewed the submission because their server was not functional. Now that I can review the link, I see that it can be verified that he won the INDIAFRICA 2012 fellowship, so that's one award partially verified. The draft uses the phrase "Young Visionary Leader Award" which does not appear in the reference; the reference is for a "Young Visionary Fellowship". The draft must be updated to match the correct name of the award he received.
- As for #7 (which is now #8), is the award conferred on GIBSS, or on Mr. Shenoy himself, or both? If it only applies to the company, then the award does not contribute to Mr. Shenoy's notability as separate from his company.
- As for #8 which is now #9, YouTube is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, which is why I asked if there is an officially published list of winners we can refer to. —Darkwind (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
User:PyunikToghik creations
Thank you for cleaning up the mess this editor made with their duplicate articles. That being said I do have slight concern of process regarding the deletion of their first six creations: Anatoli Aivazov, Narek Aslanyan, Sargis Shahinyan, Grigor Hovhannisyan, Hovhannes Harutyunyan, and Erik Gharibyan. I don't know in what state you found them, but at time of creation none of them met the criteria for speedy deletion. That being said, none of them met the relevant notability guidelines either, so I had PROD'ed them. I'm not sure whether to process matters enough to make it worthwhile restoring the articles. In either case, I'd like to know what you think on the matter. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Sir Sputnik: I had checked from the most recent going back, and all ten articles I spot-checked were copies of Kamo Hovhannisyan, so I used the "nuke contribs" tool to delete all of them together.
- I see that these six might not be copied the way the others were, however, the deletion logs for at least three of the six ([2] [3] [4]) indicate repeated spammy/policy violating creation. I don't think it's worth restoring these articles unless someone actually files a legitimate WP:REFUND request. —Darkwind (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Upon closer inspection, this user is almost certainly a sockpuppet of KunoxTxa (talk · contribs) who is single-handedly responsible for the deletion history of those three articles, so G5 would apply. In my past experience with KunoxTxa, the only response I could ever get from them were profanity laden personal attacks, which is why assumed this was a new user when they actually engaged in discussion with me. However, when they directed this attack not only at me, but also at Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs), who appears to be entirely uninvolved in all of this, it became clear given the evidence presented at the last SPI. Thanks again for your help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
- News and notes: BARC de-adminship proposal; Wikimania recordings debate
- Recent research: Wikipedia and collective intelligence; how Wikipedia is tweeted
- In the media: Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars?
- Featured content: Even mammoths get the Blues
- Traffic report: Namaste again, Reddit
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Removal of my comment
In this edit you not only decided that there is no violation, you also removed my comment. Your edit summary did not show that. Was that a mistake? Debresser (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Please look at that diff more carefully. I did not remove your comment, I removed the subsection header. There's no need for a subsection for each different user who comments on a report, as it clutters the TOC and also may cause people to mis-attribute my comments to you if they're under your section. Section headers are almost never used at WP:ANEW for these reasons. –Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for not looking more carefully.
- I recently was on WP:AE, where every user who comments receives his own subsection. I wasn't aware that on WP:3RR/N there is another custom.
- Thank you for your reply. It is always good to see an admin who takes questions about his actions seriously. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
IP edit warring, stalking, again
You asked me to notify you if the IP(now with a different set of numbers[5]) initiated stalking and edit warring.[6] After the IP was unable to provide sources to support his opinion(s), Iñaki LL and I have moved forward adding references and information to the articles. However, it appears the IP still has a problem.[7] Iñaki LL added reference and information to the Reconquista article, while the IP simply removes what he does not like. The IP has not responded to my 25 July post. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 August 2015
- Op-ed: Je ne suis pas Google
- News and notes: VisualEditor, endowment, science, and news in brief
- WikiProject report: Meet the boilerplate makers
- Traffic report: Mrityorma amritam gamaya...
- Featured content: Maya, Michigan, Medici, Médée, and Moul n'ga
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm considering posting this ANI
I'm considering posting this ANI relating to the conduct of HughD. As I link to some of your posts I would be interested in your views. [[8]] Springee (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Springee: I don't have any particular feedback, other than to say that I think you correctly summarized my administrative interactions with him. Also, just so you know for the future, there's no need to mask out user links when you're drafting something. A signature must be added in the same edit with the username link in order to send a ping, so as long as you avoid that until you actually post it, you're fine. –Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You gave the user a 31-hour block but this is a legal threat. I've also removed all the names on the page as a WP:BLP issue. For whatever reason, that IP address may be correct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I had blocked them for the 3RR violation and didn't look at the rest of their contribs. The block has been extended for the legal threat. –Darkwind (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
User:213.91.244.2
Hello, In June you blocked this editor for edit warring re POV edits on pages related to Bulgarian history. The user is now back, making the same changes on numerous pages and edit warring. I have asked him to stop on his talk page, linking to a discussion rejecting the changes he is making, and directing him to WP policies supporting that discussion. The user has disregarded consensus and is continuing to make his POV changes. Thank you for your assistance. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Laszlo Panaflex: So far, it doesn't look like they're edit warring per se. They've made changes to a large number of articles in this subject area, but the worst they've done is revert twice (at Kormisosh of Bulgaria). None of their recent edits violate any particular policy that would suggest a block is appropriate at this point. Please let me know if they start edit warring again. –Darkwind (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, how about disruptive editing? Another editor (Jbribeiro1) has now warned him about that. He is openly disregarding discussion of the issue and continues making blatantly POV edits to a wide range of pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
- News and notes: Superprotect, one year later; a contentious RfA
- In the media: Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
- Wikimanía report: Wikimanía 2015, part 2, a community event
- Traffic report: Fighting from top to bottom
- Featured content: Fused lizards, giant mice, and Scottish demons
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Blog: The Hunt for Tirpitz
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)