User talk:Stwalkerster/Archive February 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 28 February 2019
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Questionable Edits
Hello I am a newer editor of Wikipedia that edits sometimes once I see an error. I was reading an article about the death of Bradnee Chambers. Once I looked him up, since I didn't know who he was, I found his page and saw it said he still is alive. Once I went to edit I saw that users have edited it that he has but you keep reversing the edits. I checked your profile and you seem like a reputable user but I find it quite unprofessional and careless to do this once its quite obvious with a quick google search [1] of his name that Bradnee Chambers died on January 23rd 2019. Please edit this according to the facts or explain to me why you are doing this if I have missed something. - Yugo42 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yugo42, I’m a friend of stwalkerster’s who watches his page. stwalkerster is one of our most respected editors, and a big part of what he does is protect the articles of living and recently deceased persons. Part of that is requiring a RS|reliable source to show someone has died. This is because reporting a dead person is living doesn’t harm them, but reporting a living person as dead does. If you have a reliable source that shows the subject of the biography is dead, you are free to add it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) TonyBallioni, Yugo42 - It appears that Ponyo actually addressed this
yesterdaytoday - See: [2]. SQLQuery me! 00:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)- Hi Yugo42, welcome to Wikipedia! When I checked Bradnee Chambers' article both times last week, there were no easily-available sources that I could add into the article, as such I rolled back the unsubstantiated (at the time) claims of his death. As TonyBallioni says above, false claims of controversial events (death, crimes being committed, personal scandals, etc) can be highly damaging to living people, and unfortunately these are frequently inserted into articles by misinformed or bad-faith users and this isn't always caught in time. One of the better examples of this happening and being noticed is Bertrand Meyer, other examples include Robert Byrd, and Jim Davis. This is just one of several reasons we have our biographies of living people policy, which also covers the recently deceased. All controversial claims must be backed up by a reliable source so it can be independently verified by our readers - specifically with the points that any unsourced controversial information must be removed, and that the burden of proof is on the person (re-)adding the controversial material. Where possible, I try and find a source for stuff like this, but if I cannot I roll it back, and that's what happened here. Now, you appear to be correct - there are sources reporting the death - and Ponyo has already kindly restored the information to the article. I hope this explains things in a bit more detail for you! stwalkerster (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) TonyBallioni, Yugo42 - It appears that Ponyo actually addressed this
Death of André Sterling
André Sterling was my father in law. I have just added a reference link to the published newspaper announcement. npettiaux (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Npettiaux, my condolences for you loss. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 12:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
ListeriaBot
I report ListeriaBot has not worked for two days as I already reported here, though this page does not seem to be used too much. Hope the problem can be fixed. It goes to 500 Internal Server Error and it has been this way for more than 48 hours. Thanks. --Folengo (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Folengo, I suggest contacting the bot operator - I have no involvement in running that bot. stwalkerster (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've actually written to Magnus Manske, but he does not seem to be so active these days. Anyway I'll wait for a reply. Maybe it's only a problem of mine. --Folengo (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Edited O’Neal Compton page?
Hello, I tried to edit my uncle Neal’s Wikipedia page today to reflect the fact that he died yesterday. Towards the end of his life, he took great pride in the page and I know he would want people to have the information. I expect the obituary to be out tomorrow. I see that you in-edited my changes; is there a way to revert back to the changes I made?
Thank you, Spencer Compton Wetmore Esw422 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi there Esw422 - firstly, please accept my condolences for your recent loss.
- We have a policy on Wikipedia to cite any facts which are reported to a reliable source (a publication with editorial oversight such as a newspaper), allowing readers to verify for themselves what is written. While this is always important, it is even more important when dealing with biographies of living (or recently deceased) people - we even have a special policy for it. This helps ensure that any material which is potentially damaging to someone is backed up by a publication which has a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight; meaning people can't make up untrue information about someone. We're not a news website - it doesn't matter if we're simply out of date, but it does matter if we're wrong.
- While I understand that this can be frustrating (especially so as someone close to them), but please try to think of it the other way around - a new (or unregistered) user changed the article to report a family member or close friend of yours was dead, when they were actually alive - it would probably be even more upsetting, especially if other people saw the article and took action such as publishing obituaries or sending condolence cards for someone who is still alive.
- When the obituary is out, we can update the article to account for your uncle's death - until then let's just leave it as it is. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 09:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
My Sandbox
Why did you delete my sandbox without contacting me? You claim copyvio, where? -Red marquis (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Red marquis, it appears you were notified that your sandbox was nominated for deletion by Kb03. Your sandbox was a direct copy-paste of quite a number of copyrighted sources, dating back to the page's creation including [3] [4] and [5], and about four or five more. If you want it to be undeleted, you are free to take it to WP:DRV, but note that DRV will also not undelete copyrighted content. May I also take this moment to remind you that we take copyright seriously - if you wish to note sources down for use while building an article, noting where you found the source is fine, copying it verbatim (even when cited) is definitely not. stwalkerster (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can I see a screenshot of the last revision? If I rememeber correctly quotations are not copyvio. So far as Nachtkabarett, I understand that website covered much the same topic. I still did no such thing as copy their material. Marilyn Manson fan sites, as I've come to understand, have a habit of copying material from Wikipedia. -Red marquis (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stwalkerster, you didn't even create an archive of the page before deleting it in case the deletion was contested, did you? -Red marquis (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Red marquis no, I cannot give you a copy of the copyrighted content, either the text itself or a screenshot of it. Indeed, quotes can be used under fair use, but that depends on a few criteria including not copying the substantial portions of the source work, which your sandbox contained. If you're saying you didn't copy the material from a copyrighted source (noting that it's attributed to Alternative Press (magazine)), then I see two other possibilities: either you independently created that material word-for-word exactly, or someone else used your account to do so. If external sites have copied Wikipedia content, and you have copied it back to Wikipedia without attributing the original authors, that's still a breach of the copyright licence Wikipedia content is under and thus still a copyvio. As far as archives - no, I never create "an archive" of a deleted page; no administrator should be doing that. Deletion (especially on copyright or attack reasons) purposefully hides content to protect the project, leaving a copy available would defeat that point entirely. It is worth pointing out that "deletion" (by Wikipedia's process) is not permanent - the software always allows for undeletion. As a matter of good faith, I will provide below the sources you had cited in that sandbox; it is up to you to use those sources in a way that does not violate bright-line policies stwalkerster (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Stwalkerster, you didn't even create an archive of the page before deleting it in case the deletion was contested, did you? -Red marquis (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can I see a screenshot of the last revision? If I rememeber correctly quotations are not copyvio. So far as Nachtkabarett, I understand that website covered much the same topic. I still did no such thing as copy their material. Marilyn Manson fan sites, as I've come to understand, have a habit of copying material from Wikipedia. -Red marquis (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- Again, I copied nothing back into Wikipedia. You're making unsubstantiated accusations at this point. If material copied from Wikipedia by a fansite is copyvio (which, AGAIN, I DID NOT COPY BACK) then you may as well delete the mainspace article entirely since it will always trigger Earwig. -Red marquis (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request a review at WP:DRV. stwalkerster (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I copied nothing back into Wikipedia. You're making unsubstantiated accusations at this point. If material copied from Wikipedia by a fansite is copyvio (which, AGAIN, I DID NOT COPY BACK) then you may as well delete the mainspace article entirely since it will always trigger Earwig. -Red marquis (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)