User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2016/November-December


Mistake

I made a wrong call here. Thank you for pointing it out. --QEDK (T C) 04:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Surfeasy

Just FYI. I was not using surfeasy but the built-in VPN on Opera browser. I think this will be a problem for more and more people. Thanks for letting me know what was happening.--Aganon77 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

..."Secure proxy provided by SurfEasy Inc., an Opera company based in Canada. By using the service you accept the Terms of Service. VPN connects to websites via various servers around the world, so your connection speed might be affected." That's directly from Opera's settings. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

 
Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at WP:PERM/PM.
Message added 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi AmandaNP/Archives/2016.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi AmandaNP/Archives/2016,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


Adriana Díaz image

Please explain to me what was the reason to delete the File:Adriana Díaz.jpg? You just deleted it without any reason... Seriesphile (talk ·ctb) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I appologize, I read the discussion wrong, it's restored and I have changed the copyright licence to something that comes close to matching. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DeltaQuad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


On avoiding War

I am approaching you as well as other two experienced editors, not for any canvassing, but for advice and clarification.

It is not until spending time in the trenches that you start to notice that the WP:3RR, as currently stated, benefits the “bold” who dares to make changes in any given article. If you are standing in guard against erosion in the hands of a careful and systematic sculpting, the 3RR offers little protection in the face of determined and experienced ideologues.

By reverting the unsolicited and unexplained change, you have already committed the first strike, according to the 3RR.

The burden of proof, I think, should weight on the person who submits the change, particularly if the said editor has not advanced an explanation nor sought consensus on a heated topic. They have struck first, and their action should thus be considered as the first strike, retroactively. More to the point, if a bold editor has been reverted, with an explanation that suggests seeking consensus, such editor should respond to the request and move to the Talk Page rather than revert back. What do you think?

In your opinion, what are the options in this case (here and here)? This editor made a change on a controversial topic without explanation or consensus. I reverted the change and explained that a consensus is needed to consummate the change. The next day, the editor failed to seek consensus or engage me in conversation. Instead, they went ahead and reverted my change with a summary that fails to convince me.

I already have admonished them that this is a topic that requires consensus implying that before making any change the editor should submit their views on the Talk Page and discuss the matter before making the change in the article. If I revert this editor, it would be my second revert, and in the eyes of some, I have already violated the principle of the rule. But if I leave it as it is, I am allowing a un-consensus edit to remain in the article (besides, changing it back later would be harder as the new edit gradually appears to become the standard).

As I said above, my understanding is that the person who brings the change should also explain, and if advised about seeking consensus, engage the community on the topic. I would appreciate your thoughts about my position, and suggestions about how to proceed.

Note: I am aware of the WP:0RR. I approve of its principles. That is why I am approaching you for advice. But IMHO, it works better with dedicated and good faith editors. Also, in the comments above I may have given the impression that I only stand in guard at the side of articles. As my contributions show, I regularly work with content, submit edit summaries, and make liberal use of the articles’ Talk Pages. Caballero/Historiador 16:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do intend to reply, I just don't have the energy to do so tonight. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Caballero/Historiador 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Caballero1967: So your absolutely correct when it comes to spirit of the policy should be taken over technicalities. It will be absolutely frustrating sometimes to be reverted especially for what feels like no reason. I'm not going to dive into specific content case here, just the theory. The whole point behind 3RR and edit warring rules is the parent policy of consensus and the broader principle of collaberation. Editors who go in and revert without reason or edit war are violating those policies and principles. So when you have an editor that you have tried to talk to on the talkpage, maybe even stopped by their user talk, and are not getting a response, then you go and seek consensus. If the topic area is very very specific, that might only be another person agreeing with your change, without anyone opposing it. The more people you have, the stronger the consensus is. You can obtain such consensus from third opinion or other dispute resolution areas. Once you have done your part to obtain consensus, restoring consensus would be your next step (ideally not within 24h). If you are then reverted again, getting a different editor to revert and confirm the consensus would be the following step. While you doing this, leave talkpage notices and really try and discuss it with the user. If they revert again without discussing, then it's become a brightline of 3RR if in 24h or edit warring if over 24h, take your pick. Even slow edit wars are sanctionable, not just within the 24 hour period. So at that point, the edit warring noticeboard is the place to take it, and then consensus can be restored without further disruption. I get that it feels like your leaving bad material up, but it's just the way the wiki works, until policy is changed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this beautiful response. You lucidly summarized (splitting infinitive) the frustration we have to endure: "it feels like your leaving bad material up." Perhaps if we think of Wikipedia as a river, that we only make a tiny visible mark in the flow of information and only for a little while (we don't even make a dent since a tinsmith has to be brought to repair the indentation), then we could allow ourselves to let "bad material" stay up in the article without much frustration. But where should we find the motivation, then? How to take hours away from our schedule if we are just ghosts showing but weak tiny signs of life in this enormous encyclopedic project? Please, overlook these senseless rhetorical questions. Instead, notice that I am thankful for your thoughts. One more thing, though: how to avoid appearing as canvassing while garnering support for your cause? Cheers, Caballero/Historiador 11:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

Since you've been on Xparta's case before, I have to ask if a CU and rangeblock is viable for the master and his socks. For your perusal: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xparta. --QEDK (T C) 17:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible, yes; appropriate, not at this time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Edit-warring

Hello. In this comment on a totally frivolous WP:AIV report against me by Florinbaiduc regarding edits on Traian Vuia, you warned that the next revert would result in a block, regardless of 3RR. Well, he's at it again, this time in a revert-war against two editors (me and Andy Dingley, over totally unsourced nationalistic claims that Traian Vuia, born a Hungarian citizen and then becoming a French citizen by naturalisation, was instead a Romanian citizen... - Tom | Thomas.W talk

This is only 2RR. Leave him be unless he goes further. Florin needs to draw the distinction between opinion and reliably sourced before we can add such a claim, but it's not disruptive as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Thomas.W:I will report you again for vandalism if you do not change his nationality (we're talking about his nationality, not citizenship) back to Romanian yourself. This is already not a content dispute, but vandalism. You do show lack of understanding about basic concepts such as nationality vs citizenship in Wikipaedia, but still try to teach others. You do show ill mannerism (changed the text yourself, without any discussion), and ill-intent towards that page, and fully qualify as a vandal Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
He's a three reverts within less than three hours now. And as for what Florin writes above see long discussions on Talk:Traian Vuia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm watching this on my watchlist and I closed the ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So you support the addition of unsourced claims to push a nationalistic viewpoint?
This has been meatpuppeted to 2RR whilst there was an open ANI issue. What other option do editors have other than using ANI? ANEW would either reject it as 2RR alone, or you seem to require editors who aren't pushing unsourced content to push it to 3RR (and give admins an excuse for blocking them too) just to see a brightline 3RR from DonFB. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't support any one side of the argument, Andy. I'm not sure how your connecting Florinbaiduc and DonFB together as meatpuppets. It was appropriate for the initial part of the ANI to get the direct administrative action due to the attacks made by Florin, as I wasn't around to deal with it from here. If DonFB were reported to ANEW should, as an edit warring (not just 3RR) noticeboard, have protected the page like I did to stop the edit warring. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If I were to have blocked Don, I should have blocked you back at 754583523 or 753849279. But I did neither to give you guys a chance to cool the water a bit. It does seem that a consensus is growing on the talkpage for now, but enforcing it by revert after revert or one-sided blocking...accomplishes nothing benefiting the encyclopedia. Another day or two without more opposition and I would consider it consensus. Consensus rarely develops in a handful of hours. The more we do get into reverting though, the tougher the sanctions get. Before I forget, more venues like WP:3O, Mediation (which I saw was shut down due to lack of willingness), and WP:DRN. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the last revision of the talk I saw before replying to this was [32]. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. Just stumbled on this discussion. Since I'm here, I thought I'd say I ain't no meatpuppet (sounds like a bad country song to me). Don't know the guy, and he don't know me. (If it's a he of course.) I am kind of curious how someone wrongly accused of being a meatball could be found innocent. How would a person prove they don't know another person? Inquiring minds want to know. DonFB (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Your close on WP:ANI

Hello. I just wanted to point out that there was no content dispute on ANI, as you wrote in your close, just a discussion about content based on one editor having misunderstood the text, a discussion that ended when the misunderstanding was pointed out to them (about half an hour before Boing! commented on it), just as I wrote in my comment when collapsing that discussion. Which might seem like a negligible difference but isn't... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that it may not have been a dispute...it's lingo that as an Arb I may have sandwiched together too easily. I'll be mindful when using that wording. I still think my point stands though that ANI was not the place for whatever label we do put on it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Integration testing

Hi, you deleted Integration testing citing CSD G5 criteria. Integration testing is a very well-known topic in software engineering and this article about it has existed since 2003. CSD G5 criteria clearly does not apply here; it says: "...applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others" and "...the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." This has both substantial edits by others and was created 13 years ago. Please speedily restore the page. Any copyvio revisions should be purged one by one from history. Thanks, jni (delete)...just not interested 20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, that was a mistake when trying to clean up a big mess last night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Amanda, thanks for fixing it! AnomieBot managed to delete some incoming redirects; I have restored those myself. Cheers, jni (delete)...just not interested 18:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Signpost mail

 
Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 00:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: I believe in open onwiki responses to things that do not require privacy. I also find only 75 words very restrictive for the second question as it's so wide open, therefore please excuse the brevity used.
My first goal would have been 2 years ago, but being reelected, my first goal is to reestablish bi-weekly meetings for the Arbitration Committee.
I hope to influence the role of the Arbitration Committee to preform at it's peak potential to assist the community in building the encyclopedia.
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: most inappropriate to respond to a Signpost email in this way. Tony (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Tony1: I really don't get where you're coming from at all. Not all commenting to the "press" has to be done behind closed doors. Ks0stm (TCGE) 06:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm a bit confused as well. Is the alternative of no response preferred? ~ Rob13Talk 09:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't planned on further interaction here, but since you ask a substantive question, Rob: if we'd wanted a public response on a talkpage, we'd have posed our questions on this talkpage. When we email questions—clearly intended for coverage in our upcoming edition—we expect an emailed response, and have never had to spell that out. I don't have time to continue watchlisting this page. Tony (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Sorry

Hi, DQ, I'm afraid it looks like you have to keep doing it for two more years. Better luck next time! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


Happy Holidays

 

The 12 Days of Wikipedia
On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me
12 BLPs
11 RFAs
10 New Users
9 Barn Stars
8 Admins Blocking
7 Socks Socking
6 Clerks Clerking
5. Check Users Checking
4 Over Sighters Hiding
3 GAs
2. Did You Knows
and an ARB in a pear tree.

-May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health. --Cameron11598

Season's Greetings

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Seasons Greetings!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

File:Batreeqah-Avatar.png

Hello,

This is not a Club Penguin screenshot. Anyone who plays CP knows this. I had this ordered by a third party image designer who gave it to me as a gift. I own the image. File:Batreeqah-Avatar.png


Hope this clarifies any misunderstandings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeqah (talkcontribs) 01:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Either way, it's going to require evidence of permission from them, as long as they hold the copyright. The problem is, I dug deeper, and what I found wasn't encouraging. I traced your image back to a wikia wiki where your name was placed on the title of the image without the weather background. It's on a personal wiki for an administrator to Club Penguin Wikia. So i'm not sure where your getting the title "image designer", because this gives me the feeling that that person took parts of images that were on club penguin and merged them together, which is still very much in violation of copyright. This is more evident when you go looking at the images up close and see that the edges of them are cropped out. So unless said Wikia person can provide evidence of permission, the image will have to be deleted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Evidence: http://clubpenguin.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Batreeqah?diff=next&oldid=928283. You can scroll down to the bottom of that page to see that it was the image that was posted on my talk page on the CP Wikia. Batreeqah (Talk) (Contribs) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Even better, the direct image page claims fair use File:Batreeqah_ava.png (see the file page), and therefore Ocean did not have the copyright. This is now obviously a derivative and no permission exists. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're trying to say since I am not a lawyer. The image is licensed under fair use but I can't find a template to put on the image description page. Batreeqah (Talk) (Contribs) 20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello @Batreeqah: I've been following the discussion and the issue with the image is that it is a derivative work (which means it was made from another image) which the creator didn't own. That means the creator of the original image (probably club penguin) owns the copy right to the image, and that the derivative may infringe on Club Penguin/Disney's copyright. Basically the image that was made for you, was made from another image (one Disney/Club Penguin owns) so the image isn't really yours in the eyes of the law, its still Club Penguin's/Disney's property. This basically means the image is Non Free Content which has very specific rules with how it can be used on Wikipedia. Since the image is unfortunately NFCC that means it is in violation of our (wikipedia's) WP:NFCC Policy, specifically sections 7, 8 & 9 which state,

7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria Policy

I hope this makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Aries009

Hi. After reviewing the abusive emails from Aries009 (I got one too), I've upgraded the block to indefinite - I hope you don't mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Indic scripts in Indian articles

Hello! I was looking through the history of WP:INDICSCRIPT and found that you were extensively involved in its creation as evident from here. I started this section on India's talk page and made the concerned change to the article some time back. But User Tiger7253 hasn't stopped reverting those edits and we've kind of been in an edit war ever since (it's been around 20 days). I believe I was right in interpreting WP:INDICSCRIPT and removing the IAST from the infobox. Could you please intervene and give your opinion there? - Nirinsanity (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Block of 94.196.64.0/18

Could you disable talk page access for this range as well? Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

DQBot reporting bots at UAA

Your bot just reported a username, "BacDiveBot", as a possible {{uw-botublock}} situation, but I declined the report because it's an approved bot. Just curious, could you instruct your bot to ignore "bot" usernames for a few days after they're registered, and then to ignore them if Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/USERNAME exists? Of course, this is a minor and low-priority matter, and the occasional false positive like BacDiveBot isn't a problem; it's just a minor feature enhancement that I'm requesting. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot

Hi DeltaQuad, can you adjust your bot to leave the noindex alone here? (e.g. Special:Diff/754654379). — xaosflux Talk 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ran out of time tonight dealing with other administrative tasks and bloody messes. I'll try and get this tomorrow night. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mail

 
Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi, DQ. Just following your suggestion with a {{YGM}} tag. ---- Rrburke (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ MusenInvincible

So, someone comes right out and admits that they are MEAT, and there is insufficient evidence? MEAT is not part of SOCK? Oy veh. Jytdog (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To call them a sockpuppet. Meatpuppet is obviously a different story. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
yep, which is why i wrote this. SPI doesn't deal with MEAT? Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)