→Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Lead section: new section |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
{{Archives|title=[[User talk:Johnuniq/Archives|Index of archives]]|auto=no|search-width=40}} |
|||
== Uploading images == |
|||
{{Archive box| |
|||
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (June 2008 – Sep 2009)]] |
|||
Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary. |
|||
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2 (Sep 2009 – Dec 2009)]] |
|||
* [[:File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 3|Archive 3 (Jan 2010 – Aug 2010)]] |
|||
* [[:File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 4|Archive 4 (Aug 2010 – Mar 2011)]] |
|||
* [[:File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 5|Archive 5 (Mar 2011 – July 2011)]] |
|||
Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the [[WP:MTC]]. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*[[/Archive 6|Archive 6 (July 2011 – Oct 2011)]] |
|||
:{{ping|Dedhert.Jr}} I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, [[WP:IMAGES]] has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at [[WP:HELPDESK]] or (if uploaded at Commons) [[c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright]]. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, [[c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr]] and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded [[:File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg]] at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*[[/Archive 7|Archive 7 (Nov 2011 – Dec 2011)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 8|Archive 8 (Dec 2011 – May 2012)]] |
|||
== About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page == |
|||
*[[/Archive 9|Archive 9 (May 2012 – July 2012)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 10|Archive 10 (July 2012 – Aug 2012)]] |
|||
Recently this page's protection was raised. |
|||
*[[/Archive 11|Archive 11 (Aug 2012 – Feb 2013)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 12|Archive 12 (Feb 2013 – May 2013)]] |
|||
The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet. |
|||
*[[/Archive 13|Archive 13 (May 2013 – Sep 2013)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 14|Archive 14 (Sep 2013 – Dec 2013)]] |
|||
Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage. |
|||
*[[/Archive 15|Archive 15 (Dec 2014 – Apr 2014)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 16|Archive 16 (Apr 2014 – July 2014)]] |
|||
But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags. |
|||
*[[/Archive 17|Archive 17 (Aug 2014 – Dec 2014)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 18|Archive 18 (Jan 2015 – Apr 2015)]] |
|||
The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description. |
|||
*[[/Archive 19|Archive 19 (May 2015 – Dec 2015)]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 20|Archive 20 (Dec 2015 – June 2016)]] |
|||
A disputed and misinterpreted claim |
|||
"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion. |
|||
An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org. |
|||
While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article. |
|||
I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism. |
|||
Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide". |
|||
I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing |
|||
page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article. |
|||
Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself. |
|||
I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion |
|||
I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this. |
|||
[[User:Salekin.sami36|Salekin.sami36]] ([[User talk:Salekin.sami36|talk]]) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Salekin.sami36}} This refers to [[Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War]] and the fact that I applied indefinite [[WP:ECP]] protection as a result of a request at [[WP:RPPI]]. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a [[WP:CTOPS|contentious topic]]. All you can do is make suggestions at [[Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War]] but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See [[WP:DR]] which would probably lead to an [[WP:RFC]]. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved, |
|||
::after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.[[User:Salekin.sami36|Salekin.sami36]] ([[User talk:Salekin.sami36|talk]]) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm afraid that's why the topic is contentious. A relevant essay might be [[WP:CPUSH]] but again, I have no knowledge of the topic and no ability to decide who is correct regarding the content. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Horse racing distance template == |
|||
Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. [[User:Bcp67|Bcp67]] ([[User talk:Bcp67|talk]]) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the note. I'm glad {{tl|hrd}} has been useful. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== YGM == |
|||
{{ygm}} [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Comment on revert on [[Robert FitzRoy]] == |
|||
You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. [[User:AlmostReadytoFly|AlmostReadytoFly]] ([[User talk:AlmostReadytoFly|talk]]) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk ([[Talk:Robert FitzRoy]]) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Chris Brown ECP == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on [[Chris Brown]] since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — [[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, I've done that. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Template:PolParsEstCat == |
|||
Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{t|PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on [https://templatecount.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&namespace=10&name=PolParsEstCat#bottom 212 pages], which per [[WP:HRT]] is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|HouseBlaster}} I template-protected {{tl|PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2020/02#Template:PolParsEstCat|29 February 2020]]. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at [[WP:RPPD]] where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Happy to go to [[WP:RFPD]]. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.{{pb}}My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have [[WP:TRAINWRECK]] issues.){{pb}}I will note that I have been making use of [[WP:RMT]] when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. <b style="font-family:Courier New;">[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Disruptive IP range...still == |
|||
I'm not the OP, and this isn't [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive IP range|the original notification location]], but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. [[User:Mapsax|Mapsax]] ([[User talk:Mapsax|talk]]) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Mapsax}} Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at [[Talk:WTIC-FM]] which would justify a longer block (the previous block for [[Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40]] was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and [[User talk:2601:183:4B82:E70:D05D:9EF7:A423:9B63|attempts]] to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. [[User:Mapsax|Mapsax]] ([[User talk:Mapsax|talk]]) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wouldn't put a great deal of effort into it because, as you say, the chance of getting a response is very low. However, if there is no effort it is hard to justify, say, a three-month block on the basis that the IP would have failed to respond. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – February 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (January 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk|Red-tailed hawk]] |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robertsky|Robertsky]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1198163833#Desysop|Ameliorate!]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193155124#Desysop (Ancheta Wis)|Ancheta Wis]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193949086#Deceased administrator, Anthony Bradbury|Anthony Bradbury]] ([[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2024#Anthony Bradbury (Anthony Bradbury)|deceased]]) |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192900858#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#January 2024|Cobi]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1192900858#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#January 2024|Ev]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1194493000#Desysop request for Moondyne|Moondyne]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1194569776#Desysop for WTT|Worm That Turned]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
==Index of stuff== |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1194752334#Desysop for WTT|Worm That Turned]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 3#Why shouldn't editors have a say about policy?|Comments re free speech]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 4#Islam & evolution|Jagged progress]] • [[/Archive 5#Technical question|more]] • [[/Archive 11#Genre articles|genre articles]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 13#Highbeam results|Links to highbeam.com from dumps of external links]] • [[/Archive 10#Highbeam notes|earlier]] • [[/Archive 14#Credo Reference results|more Credo]] • [[/Archive 15#Wikipedia Library, Metrics Coordinator|JSTOR results]] • [[/Archive 18#Re:Metrics request|JSTOR + Cochrane January 2015]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 12#Template:Gregorian serial date|Gregorian serial date template]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 13#research on Wikipedia and the news media|Analysis of EL dump using Amazon S3]] very interesting methods from [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] |
|||
*[[/Archive 13#Module:Convert and non-arabic digits|Module:Number at Hindi Wikipedia]] request from [[User:Siddhartha Ghai|Siddhartha Ghai]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
==Layout request== |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
Bishzilla, like apparently also Richard Dawson, is a great fan of Xkcd. Rather pathetically, she has attempted to put a honorary banner on her talkpage — see it? Looks awful, naturally, especially the way it squashes up against the "User Wikipedian For year" box, that she doesn't want to lose. Could you possibly make it look decent? A proper centered box would be nice. And, while purple is good (she copied the whole thing from the talkpage of the slightly more proficient Darwinbish, and it was purple there), she'd rather have bright green. Damn that RGB code, prehistoric critters can't handle it. They generally prefer the divbox, where you simply type "green", but the divbox is too wide for this. (Do you know a way to limit the width of it, by any chance?) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 16:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC). |
|||
:Little 'shonen too stupid or lazy to supply convenient links: [[User talk:Bishzilla]] and [https://xkcd.com/54/]. [[User:Bishzilla|<b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">''bishzilla''</b>]] [[User talk:Bishzilla|<i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;"><small><small><small><sub>R</sub>OA</small>R</small>R!</small>!</i>]] 16:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC). |
|||
::{{ping|Bishzilla}} I could probably hack something, but callling [[User:RexxS|RexxS]] would give a better result. I consult [[Web colors#X11 color names]] (or is it another page?) when wanting to pick an RGB color. |
|||
::Yummy, I don't recall seeing the edit notice at [[User talk:Bishzilla]]—wow! And I might post that xkcd cartoon at [[Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 4#Age of Earth Opinion vs Fact]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::[''Zilla effortfully check out little talkpage section.''] Good place for it! Speak volumes! 'Zilla attempt placement herself, but unfortunately Bishonen yank leash. "No editing article talkpages, monster!" Bah. Roarr. :-( [[User:Bishzilla|<b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">''bishzilla''</b>]] [[User talk:Bishzilla|<i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;"><small><small><small><sub>R</sub>OA</small>R</small>R!</small>!</i>]] 21:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC). |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
== Lua: mw.text.split by backslash oddity == |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
Please see [[Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3]] and [[User:Sameboat/sandbox]]. When I attempt to split a string separated by backslash ('1\2\3\4\5'), it returns this: 1����. Welp~ -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 01:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Diff/1201048570#Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024|Wugapodes]] |
|||
:{{ping|Sameboat}} The problem is that <code>'1\2\3\4\5'</code> should be <code>'1\\2\\3\\4\\5'</code> because you want real backslashes in the string. The black diamond with a question mark (what I see in my browser) is a symbol indicating that the UTF-8 code is not valid because, for example, <code>'\2'</code> is the byte hex 02 which is not UTF-8. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. Problem is the source which would be analyzed and split comes from something like [[Draft:West Coast Main Line diagram|this]]. Ultimately I want to trim strings like this <code>'\\\STR\STR\\'</code> into this <code>'\STR\STR'</code> by splitting the string by backslash and analyze the first value and last value if both are empty <code><nowiki>''</nowiki></code>, then remove them from the table and finally concat all split values again.<br>The markup is primarily analyzed by [[module:Routemap]] at line 228 and to form the diagram, but I have no idea how it avoids the black diamond. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 02:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Sameboat}} Clicking edit at [[Draft:West Coast Main Line diagram]] shows lines including the first of the following, which for our purposes is the same as the second. |
|||
<pre> |
|||
\\\\\\exKHSTa\\STR\\\exSTR~~{{rws|Preston West Lancs}} (latterly goods only) |
|||
\\\\\\abd\\def\\\ghi |
|||
</pre> |
|||
:::Considering the second line, what do want to do? The second line has 6 consecutive backslashes, then 2, then 3. That is exactly what a module would receive. Please use single backslashes only in our discussion unless showing a line of Lua because I can't work out how many backslashes you intended in the strings in your last reply. For example, if you write 'a\\b' I will assume it is 'a' then two backslashes then 'b'. For development you might use a comma instead of a backslash, then get the code working for commas. Then it would be simple to fix it to work with backslashes. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry for troubling you all this time. I accidentally discovered that ''mw.text.trim'' helps ignore escape sequence which is like wrapping the string with double square brackets. The best part is that the [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#mw.text.trim Scribunto/Lua reference manual] on MediaWiki doesn't explain this function at all! Should I amend it? -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Sameboat}} Don't worry about posting here—I won't respond if I'm unavailable. I like stories with an ending, so please let me know when it all works. I don't think mw.text.trim does anything unexpected. I wouldn't update its documentation unless very confident! If editing a module, you can paste <code><nowiki>=[[1\23]]</nowiki></code> into the debug console, and it will show <code>1\23</code>, whereas <code>='1\23'</code> shows the black diamond, as you said. Can you post an example with mw.text.trim that shows what you mean? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You can see in [[Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3]] and [[User:Sameboat/sandbox]]. I just apply mw.text.trim to the source and then the worry of escape sequence is gone. Routemap itself is quite complicated to explain, anyway the trimmer function is for reducing the visible row width of the icons without ruining the intended position in the whole map table. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat - 同舟]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sameboat|contri.]]) 06:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't need to understand Routemap, but if you were to show test input and output, plus what was wanted for the output (assuming the wanted result is not happening), I could work out you wanted the module to do. At any rate, I'm sure mw.text.trim is not influencing the black diamonds, so I edited [[Module:Sandbox/Sameboat/m3]] to remove the trim. Put it back when you have looked at the result. The result in the sandbox is different with something strange happening for trimmer2, but no diamonds. Have you checked trimmer2? It seems to set a couple of tables to {} each time around the loop, and that looks like a bug, although I haven't studied it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Interface administrator changes''' |
|||
== Range Block Tool == |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1200495852#Inactive interface administrators 2024-01-28|Enterprisey]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193040631#Remove INTADMIN from Izno|Izno]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
Hey I was testing out the range block tool you posted at ANI on the thread where I provided the range block information. The contributions function doesn't seem to work it spits out an error saying "User account "2600:8805:2100:A200:*" is not registered." Any ideas if this is a problem just on my end or does the contributions function not work yet? |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
--[[User:Cameron11598|Cameron<sub><small>11598</small></sub>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Cameron11598|(Talk)]] </sup> 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* An [[Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators#RFC: Increase inactivity requirement|RfC]] about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback. |
|||
:never mind turns out the gadget got disabled on me :/ --[[User:Cameron11598|Cameron<sub><small>11598</small></sub>]] <sup>[[User Talk:Cameron11598|(Talk)]] </sup> 04:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm glad you fixed it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
==Huma Abedin== |
|||
* Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. ({{phab|T326065}}) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
"drive bye tag" my ASSSSSSSSS!!!! Apparently failed to see the talk page!!!! BS!!! Thanks for your opinion but we all have them, I asked for neutrality check you just PROCLAIMED "DRIVE BYE CHECK" that woudl be true if I did not make an entry on the talk page otherwise SUBJECTIVE BULLLL!!!!PS tag is going back you failed to provide eitehr discussion on it's removal or a discussion now let me throughly analyse all your contributions and see how unbiased and not subject you are be back shortly, good day!!--[[User:0pen$0urce|0pen$0urce]] ([[User talk:0pen$0urce|talk]]) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* Following a [[Special:Permalink/1193639157#Motion: Reliable source consensus-required restriction|motion]], the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas. |
|||
:No, I saw [[Talk:Huma Abedin#Undue weight and lack of NPOV on congressional Inquiries Sections]] and observed that it contained no statement to justify a tag other than a generic complaint. Is the concern that there must be plenty of dirt on anyone associated with Clinton? Having added the tag twice, you now have a total of two edits to the article. You don't seriously imagine that a tag is an unmovable object that has to remain until the tagger is satisfied? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* Community feedback is [[Special:Permalink/1200584793#Feedback requested for AE's "Information for administrators" section|requested]] for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at [[WP:AE]]. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
== ANI notice == |
|||
* Voting in the [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024|2024 Steward elections]] will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The [[:meta:Stewards/Confirm/2024|confirmation process]] of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically [https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligibility/70 check your eligibility] to vote. |
|||
* A vote to '''ratify the charter for the [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]]''' is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via [[:m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/395|Secure Poll]]. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found [[:m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information|here]]. |
|||
* Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey|Community Wishlist Survey]]. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey#January 4, 2024: Shaping the Future of the Community Wishlist Survey|Read more]] |
|||
* The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024|Unreferenced articles backlog drive]] is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024|'''Sign up to participate!''']] |
|||
---- |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sea Lions|Sea Lions]]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
:Groan, that's the mind control fringe stuff from [[WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"|NPOVN]]. Thanks for trying to explain the facts of life to them. I commented. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
:: No it is people attempting to make the article Electronic Harassment consistent with Wikipedia policy, which is not to state opinions as facts. That is in this case the psychiatric opinion should not be stated as a fact: "These experiences are hallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis." is one instance of that. It should be "It is the opinion of psychiatrists that...etc" What is 'mind control fringe' about that, thanks,?[[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk:Jed Stuart|talk]]) 07:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1201592826 --> |
|||
==Highly inappropriate warning of a block== |
|||
== Admin? == |
|||
Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thinker78&diff=prev&oldid=1205281622 warned me] that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>-[[File:Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg|15px|link=User talk:Moxy]] 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the [[End of Wikipedia]] I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::My sense is that it's getting worse. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Spanish protests edit == |
|||
Have you ever thought of becoming an admin? I find your comments at ANI and other noticeboards genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, fair, and helpful. And you have a technical background, and a thorough and varied tenure here. Would you be interested in becoming an admin? I know some folks are happy remaining at the civilian level, however I think the admin corps could use you if you were interested. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 08:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]]: Thanks, that's very kind. I have a vague feeling that one day I might run for admin because I would like to help with some of the cases at ANI where the matter is pretty clear, but the issue is ignored for whatever reason. However, running now is not going to happen because I still haven't done any significant article development, and I agree with those who say an admin should have created a few articles and demonstrated competence in that area, and have an appreciation for why an admin should avoid molesting content builders. I got sidetracked by my programming interests nearly four years ago and that has taken most of my energy since ([[User:Johnuniq/index|index]]). One day I'll return to some of my old notes and do some article work, and then I'll remind you about this discussion!<p>Sorry about the peculiar edit conflict at ANI that occurred a couple of hours back. I prepared my comment in an editor, then clicked "edit" in the browser and pressed Ctrl-End followed by Ctrl-V to go to the end of the section and paste my comment. However, on preview, I noticed a typo which I fixed, then previewed again and saved. On saving, I saw my comment was before your new comment which had not appeared in my edit window, and the history shows your comment as a couple of minutes ahead of mine. I did not put my comment in front of yours! Very weird. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 11:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your reply; I didn't know you hadn't done much content (I didn't bother to check), and it's nice that you are taking the advice of content creators to heart. No worries about the ANI thread: I've noticed more and more that ANI has weird technical fuck-ups like that. Cheers, [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 11:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tpw}} Hello J. I've seen a few threads recently where there is a general feeling that content creation is not the must that it used to be - at least in part to the fact that WikiP has been around for over a decade now. You should still do what you feel most comfortable with. I do think you would make a good admin. On the other topic ANI and AN edit conflicts have been wonky for some time now. I remember a thread at VPT but no one seemed to know how to fix it. Cheers to you both. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 17:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks but I won't try running until I've done more—I've got quite a lot of ''to-do'' notes that I've accummulated... [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia |
|||
== Reply == |
|||
I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. ([[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331|talk]]) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)) |
|||
This is a reply to the message you sent me. I want everything on my sandbox to be there. I want to know what is wrong with my sandbox as you didn't elaborate on that. Did I use too much space? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Uconnfan93|Uconnfan93]] ([[User talk:Uconnfan93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Uconnfan93|contribs]]) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:*{{la|Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024)}} |
|||
:Replied at [[User talk:Uconnfan93]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{no redirect|2023 Spanish protests}} {{green|(original title)}} |
|||
:Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See [[WP:DR]] for dispute resolution and [[WP:RM]] for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at [[WP:Teahouse]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Thanks, again == |
||
Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (T) ]] 🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Twomad page protection == |
|||
I looked over the edits in the script, many were fine. Sorry for any inconvenience. |
|||
Don't see the problem in this... |
|||
Why did you decide to extended-protect [[Twomad]] when both requests ([[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/02#Twomad|1]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/02#twomad 2|2]]) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? [[User:Doublah|Doublah]] ([[User talk:Doublah|talk]]) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"*The script must be fixed to avoid hard-to-see stuff like changing the first of the following to the second: |
|||
:{{ping|Doublah}} Something confusing happened with [[Twomad]]. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=protect&user=&page=Twomad&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist protection log] which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:url=https://books.google.com/books?id=meS-dCN7wU4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+england's+crises+and+cultural+memory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOoJW8v_XLAhVBOT4KHZorA-sQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=new%20england's%20crises%20and%20cultural%20memory&f=false |
|||
::Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:url=https://books.google.com/books?id=meS-dCN7wU4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+england's+crises+and+cultural+memory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOoJW8v_XLAhVBOT4&nbsp;kHzorA-sQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=new%20england's%20crises%20and%20cultural%20memory&f=false |
|||
:::Thanks, I am sure you did the right thing. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It changed "4KHZ" to "<code>4&nbsp;kHz</code>". An article using the doubly wrong "4KHZ" should probably be carefully examined rather than changed automatically." |
|||
== Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection == |
|||
[[User:JerrySa1|JerrySa1]] ([[User talk:JerrySa1|talk]]) 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:No problem, but I replied at your talk to keep the discussion in one place. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[Trump Tower wiretapping allegations]] needs protection. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Reverting of my re-opening of: NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment" == |
|||
:I'm late. Someone else has semi-protected. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus== |
|||
You have undone my re-opening of the discussion: NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment" at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=1 You mention that the issue has gone to ANI and is settled. The issue of whether the discussion should continue has not gone to ANI at all. It will if you don't restore my re-opening. What went to ANI was the view of one side of the dispute, that the other side was sea lioning. There was little discussion and the topic was closed before I, the main person being accused, was able to make a statement. I re-opened that discussion so as to have a say and it was also closed before I could say anything. This is not fair play. This is consistent with other actions in this dispute. I attempted to set up a mediation process and someone turned up to mediate and quickly closed the discussion before I could have a say. [[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk:Jed Stuart|talk]]) 07:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{talkback|Template talk:Convert|Bogus unit "kiloare"|ts=12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
:Links: |
|||
[[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*[[Talk:Electronic harassment]] article talk |
|||
:*[[WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"|WP:NPOVN]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/732626803#NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"|permalink]]) opened 8 June 2016; closed 24 July 2016 |
|||
:*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#Sea Lions|ANI archive]] July 2016 |
|||
:Would you agree there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about the topic? How many established editors have indicated they thought the discussion was warranted? Following is a quote from the NPOVN discussion: |
|||
::Review [[Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 3]], [[Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 4]], and [[Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive 5]] for all the many ways you've asked this same question and all the many ways it has been answered for you. |
|||
:Many editors would have seen the discussion at NPOVN and ANI—if there were a problem, someone other than yourself would have noticed. It is time to let the issue go because repeatedly pursuing anything at Wikipedia is disruptive and can lead to topic bans. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: I agree there has been a lot of discussion. I have withdrawn from the EH article and Talk page because editors there expressed annoyance at my continuing to attempt get them to address the NPOV issue rather than just giving links to policies and attacking my behaviour. It was suggested that I take my concerns elsewhere and so I started the topic at NPOVN. There has been a lot of gaming the system/abuse of process in this dispute so far. I attempted to set up informal mediation and a person offers to mediate, there is a rather silly discussion and it is then closed before I get a chance to comment. I get accused at ANI of sea lioning and that topic is closed before I have a chance to comment. And the NPOVN topic I started is at the same time closed by Begoon because it's 'boring'. I re-start the ANI topic, making it clear that my response time is slow, and get back to it to find it closed before I can comment again. I re-open the NPOVN topic and you then close it. I would not continue with this if there were not people agreeing with my view. But there are and they have recently said so at NPOVN. Your closing it at this stage and your remark to Guy Macon above at ANI notice 'that's the mind control fringe stuff from NPOVN' reveal that you are on the other side of this issue. I have replied to that above. I don't think it is acceptable for you to gag discussion at NPOVN. I am going to undo your interference and hope to nail the real issue, which is a simple NPOV issue. If it is gagged again I will take it to ANI.[[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]] ([[User talk:Jed Stuart|talk]]) 03:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Checking the article [[Electronic harassment]], I see it is in the category Pseudoscience. In my opinion, [[User:Jed Stuart]] might be banned from the topic of electronic harassment under the discretionary sanctions provided by [[WP:ARBPS]]. He has already been alerted to those sanctions in January by [[User:JzG]]. The pattern of Jed's edits indicates he is unable to edit neutrally in that area. In March 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=711874331 a similar sanction was issued] on a different editor. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Jed Stuart|Jed Stuart]]: You re-opened the discussion at [[WP:NPOVN]] but it was closed three minutes later with a comment that included "There is consensus that there are no neutrality issues here" ([[Special:Diff/732769724|diff]]). My advice would be to accept that as the last word on the matter because, as I said above, there has been ample opportunity for other editors to have reviewed the situation and I do not see any support for your position. |
|||
::::@[[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]]: Thank you, I'm sure you are correct and the next step would be for an uninvolved administrator to apply a topic ban. I guess that can wait until we see what response occurs now. For the record, [[Special:PermanentLink/698412381|this permalink]] (5 January 2016) shows the discretionary sanctions notification at [[User talk:Jed Stuart]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I support a topic ban. This has gone on long enough. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{re|JzG}} Given [[User_talk:BU_Rob13#Gagging_of_debate_at_NPOVN]], I am inclined to agree. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 06:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{user|Jed Stuart}} This may have to go to [[WP:AE]] if no one feels like acting alone, but it's unusual in that it is slow and steady rather than the usual flood. I archived [[Talk:Electronic harassment]] earlier to encourage the IPs to find another website, but one of them is back. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 08:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== User Nangaf talk page == |
||
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. [[User:Nangaf|Nangaf]] ([[User talk:Nangaf|talk]]) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I deleted most of the weather boxes except for 7 of them. I understand that Wikipedia is not free to run but look at the traffic you get daily. And the reason I created those weather boxes is because I am interested in weather and I like to keep track of 4 weather stations monthly data. And I know what a sandbox is. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Uconnfan93|Uconnfan93]] ([[User talk:Uconnfan93|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Uconnfan93|contribs]]) 18:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:{{ping|Nangaf}} My options for dealing with long-term abusers are limited—it boils down to blocking everyone involved. A bunch of stuff is going on here at the moment and it looks like I got confused and blocked [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44|2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44]] which does not cover [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8|2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8]] who posted at your talk. I have watched your talk since noticing the shifting IP turn up there during a noticeboard discussion, I think at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Heiner Rindermann]]. I have to go elsewhere and don't have an opportunity to investigate further. I can see that you are doing everything correctly and are concerned about third-parties interfering at your talk (I saw the history which shows it has happened before). [[WP:BMB]] has enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic opposers who favor complete liberty. I'm one of the former and keen advocate of [[WP:DENY]] so I am afraid you will hear from me again if the IP continues. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, [[User:Uconnfan93/sandbox]] is greatly improved. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 == |
|||
== Misguided campaigns == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (February 2024). |
|||
Can you please direct me to the dispute/discussion you mentioned in your [http://misguided%20campaigns revert]? Also, I didn't know that, for lack of a better term, a disgruntled employee's criticism was not valid. Thanks. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">Kamel</span>]][[User talk:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">Tebaast</span>]]</span> 08:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Kamel Tebaast|Kamel Tebaast]]: It's a long and complex story involving [[gamergate controversy]] and [[WP:ARBGG]]. Dozens of accounts have been created or reactivated by gamergate supporters in order to express displeasure with what the article says, and to poke the administrators who attempted to keep the peace following the arbitration case. They scored a hit with [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others|this case]], and the target retired after harassment in real life as well as at Wikipedia. The edit in question involves one of the [[David Auerbach|off-wiki campaigners]] who has also [[Special:Contributions/Auerbachkeller|participated]] on-wiki. The opinion was added by an [[Special:Contributions/TradingJihadist|indeffed editor]] who is obviously a returned user seeking to inflame the issues I outlined. Not every criticism needs to be listed, and particularly not when it is from a participant expressing their dissatisfaction with the outcome of a dispute. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{Col-begin}} |
|||
== Ancestral Health == |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
I've been reading up a bit on this (I am aware of the dispute that blew up over this and I've read the discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_86#Ancestral_health|here]]), and I was wondering what Wikipedia needs to say about this (if anything)? At the moment, it is a redirect to [[paleolithic lifestyle]], but that article says nothing at all about 'ancestral health'. Won't that confuse people who might come to Wikipedia looking for information on this? At the moment, the phrase 'ancestral health' appears in the following articles: [[George Dvorsky]] ("ancestral health advocate"), [[Tucker Max]] ("In 2011, he was a guest speaker at the Ancestral Health Symposium, giving a presentation entitled From cave to cage: Mixed martial arts in ancestral health."), [[Erwan Le Corre]] ("49-minute video lecture by Erwan Le Corre at the Ancestral Health Symposium, August, 2011") and [[paleolithic diet]] (a see also link). What I'm wondering is whether the redirect taking people from those articles is currently misleading? Two of the links are to do directly with the Ancestral Health Society. What is the correct approach here? To remove the links as misleading, or to add something to the [[paleolithic lifestyle]] article about the Ancestral Health Society, its journal, and the wider ancestral health 'movement'? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
:@[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]]: You may have found my comment at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930#I forbid anyone to disagree with me!!|ANI discussion]] with "it was explained to me ([[WT:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 86#Ancestral health|here]]) that [[Ancestral health]] is a scam (that's my quick summary)". That's a very unfortunate case—I wanted to add evidence but for my personal sanity level I haven't done so yet. |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb|Sdkb]] |
|||
:Re the misleading [[ancestral health]] links: I have seen that sort of thing several times, and there is often no good way to handle the problem. I can't recall any examples, but typically an article on a fringe topic would go to AfD where people would agree it wasn't suitable per [[WP:N]], but would disagree about deletion with some saying ''redirect'' and others ''merge and redirect''. However, no one ever does the merging, and when someone looks at adding a mention of the topic in the target article, it turns out to be quite hard because such a mention would have [[WP:UNDUE]] or [[WP:RS]] problems. A compounding factor is that often it's only fringe advocates who have sufficient interest to write up such hard-to-define ideas, and they tend to over-egg the case, so their text gets deleted. I'll watch [[Paleolithic lifestyle]] but I haven't had much energy for that sort of thing lately. I would leave the links as they do the best that is possible at the moment, despite the problems you outlined. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch|The Night Watch]] |
|||
}} |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|East718]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1210532424#Desysop request (Isabelle Belato)|Isabelle Belato]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1204281845#Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac|Mzajac]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|Staecker]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201923983#Desysop request (Stan Shebs)|Stan Shebs]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1201596272#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024|Sugarfish]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1208474988#Resignation (Tamzin)|Tamzin]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
:{{tps}} In the cases where there is a redirect but there is no mention of the term in the target article, the reader assumes the terms are synonymous, which is the case here (according to the definition of the organization that uses the term [http://jevohealth.com/journal/vol1/iss1/3/]). We have thousands of such redirects on Wikipedia. Few of them are fringe topics -- they merely happen to be alternate, little-known, less-used names for something else (the target article). It's not misleading and nothing really ''needs'' to be done, although there's nothing preventing someone from adding a well-cited mention somewhere in the article. If further sources are desired for that, there are several independent sources mentioned at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ancestral_health]]. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
:::<small>I gave a lecture on that topic a year ago, by coincidence.(Un)fortunately, it is in Italian, so unreadable. It was more concerned with the collateral long term consequences of grain choice on the development of civilization, the concept of time and leisure, but did cite an interesting statement to the effect that:’paleopathological evidence and a comparison of the environments in which prehistoric hunter-gatherers chose to live with those in which their modern counterparts are confined by the pressures of competition suggests that the populations of prehistory were at least as well nourished as those of today.' (Susan Scott,Christopher J. Duncan, Demography and Nutrition: Evidence from Historical and Contemporary Populations 2008 John Wiley & Sons, 2008 pp.3-4), and the fact that since grain cultivation is historically correlated with the emergence of radical class hierarchies, the average palaeolithic person ate far better than the majoritarian underclass throughout history. [[Jared Diamond]]'s ''The World Until Yesterday'' of course argues there was more violence. I'm not persuaded. I live in Italy, where an excellent fare generally imbricates over a fairly peaceful society.:) [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::You have so many coincidences, and they're all interesting! At least you won't ever need to argue in real life because the gift that is Wikipedia keeps on giving (yes, I peeked at your talk). I'll have a question about ''[[Giulio Cesare]]'' in due course, and I know where to post it. Re living as our ancestors may have, it's certain that we evolved under very difference circumstances than those that apply in 21C, and it's also known that a lot of money can be earned from selling health advice—rather than giving lectures with footnotes, you should have teamed up with someone from marketing and joined the wealthy and happily fat class! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<small>Fortunately my mother, a pharmacist, raised us as 'red indians', encouraging every sign of wildness. Medicines, she told us, were for the customers: we had to sit out our aches and pains, and if we complained, a dose of castor oil was all we got. Get a cut in a knife fight or brawl? 'Whistle any dog nearby and get him to lick it, or pee on it', etc. She was very good on poltices for burns, esp. when one of our cousins got 2nd degree burns from an improvised flamethrower we used. I only took an aspirin at 42, and then never again. As to wealth, the premise should be, 'wealth of free time' in our available lifespans. Palaeolithic man, like most hunter-gatherers, only needed several hours a week to secure food, so though the average life span, due to high infant mortality, was around 36, that still means that they had more time to do what they liked than we three-score-and-tenners in the Isaiah scheme. On the other hand, it was statistically a tough place if you like some crumpet as part of the daily regimen: 4 women to every 5 men. Guess that's why freckle-punching took on.:) Just as well, the variation was to have a positive disproportionate effect on the creativity of high civilizations.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::How irritating—surely you aren't an authority on sex as well? I don't see any useful mention at [[Human sex ratio]] of historical sex ratios. The article talks about male/female ratios close to 1, but you're saying it was once 1.25. Due to death in childbirth? That throws some cold water on the paleo lifestyle! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::<small>I don't read many wiki articles because they tend to get me agitated, in the sense I think:'Aw fuck, more hard yakka' needed and ruin my palaeolithic lifestyle privileging an otiose existence (I use 'otiose' because 'negotiation' comes from Latin, where it meant both 'entrepreneurial activity,business' and 'distress' (neque+otium 'no idleness'), which is what civilization is about.) It's odd that that article fails to mention this, since it is a fairly frequently mentioned result from the analysis of skeletal remains from that period (James Neill,[https://books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA74 ''The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies,''] McFarland, 2008 p.74). He too speculates about this and the origins of homosexuality (there's another possibility of course one could infer from that ratio, i.e. that it was the reason why 'feeding the chooks' as I believe antipodean idiom describes wanking, became popular (at least, my memory prompts me, hearsay informs me, and reading about Vladimir Nabokov's preferences after the birth of his son, suggests). Ah, which makes me brighten this Sunday with a new theory. The palaeolithic sex ratio favoured the domestication of chickens for egg production !:)) I'm an authority on nothing, but it can't be a ''coincidence'' that I once eked out life, or supplemented a parlous shortfall in funds for books, by taking on translations of oriental pornography, which went into great detail over the historical arcana of words used in brothels to describe human anatomies engaged in sinking the Strassburg sausage or, to respect sexual parity, having the bishop interred in one's grave(y)yard (reminds me that 'yard' is an old English idiom for you know what!) Ah, time for breakfast and a slow deli(n)quescence into the [[Trimalchio|Trimalchian]] indulgences of an Italian Sunday! Enjoy yours. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::::Thanks, that's interesting! I need another hundred years to do all the things I'd like to, but I'll never get around to reading that book (although I have now read two of its pages). Thanks also for explaining how you sustained your early career—you would be handy company in an oriental brothel! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
==You didn't waste your time== |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[m:Special:Permalink/26246943#SilkTork@enwiki|SilkTork]] |
|||
Thanks for weighing in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64&oldid=736270874#Another_random_train_editor here]. I just feel the need to mention that I do use the helpful <nowiki>{{blockcalc}}</nowiki> — I wouldn't want you to think you wasted your time explaining it to me. But sometimes, like that time, the dead simple asterisk trick is enough, so I tend to try it first. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC). |
|||
:I wasn't really trying to push my product, I just find it easier to use a sandbox to see the link for what the required gadget is called. You are correct that for the usage case in question, and for someone who has done it before, it's far easier to do it manually than to fiddle with a template. Happy blocking! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Blocking always make little 'shonen happy. Very trigger-happy admin! Not gentle like 'zilla. [[User:Bishzilla|<b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">''bishzilla''</b>]] [[User talk:Bishzilla|<i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;"><small><small><small><sub>R</sub>OA</small>R</small>R!</small>!</i>]] 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC). |
|||
{{Col-end}} |
|||
== Disappearance of Madeleine McCann == |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
Hello, |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|Phase I]] of the 2024 [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|RfA review]] is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the [[WP:RFA|requests for adminship process]]. |
|||
Since you have undone my revision of this article I have opened a new section in its talk page in order to avoid an edit war. In my opinion and, according to Wikipedia policies, it is better to resolve this kind of disputes in a civilised manner instead of editing back-and-forth. Since I acknowledge that your reversion devolves the page to the status quo, I compromise myself not to edit again in the direction I did unless a consensus were reached. I invite you to contribute to the talk page with your cons and eventual pros supporting any of the versions of the fourth paragraph of the article. |
|||
* Following [[Special:Permalink/1210946192#RFC: Increase inactivity requirement|an RfC]], the inactivity requirement for the removal of the [[Wikipedia:Interface administrators|interface administrator]] right increased from 6 months to 12 months. |
|||
If you wished to leave me a reply, please do it in my User talk. You'd be the first one in this Wiki. |
|||
Best regards, [[User:Sam10rc|Sam10rc]] ([[User talk:Sam10rc|talk]]) 15:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Please don't post redundant stuff on an editor talk page. I'm quite civilised and do not need to be reminded. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I expect no sorrow in a blunt message. At the end of the day it has resulted to be pointless. Please, let me analyse your last reply and decide yourself if it was appropriate for a talk page in enWiki. You have bothered enough to check my contributions and you seem to be discrediting me on the basis that I have contributed too few to this Wiki. You point my lack of familiarity with standard procedures. I have been bold and edited for what I though was the best for the article, seen my contrubition reverted and wrote on the talk page to raise my concerns for the sake of NPOV. You are right writing that this is an article talk page and you may simply ignore the last sentence in my previous reply. Or you can make a honest attempt to read what I mean when I put that I left my personal beliefs behind, specially when I point that the edition I proposed goes AGAINST my personal beliefs because there are too few evidence for what went according to those beliefs. I acknowledge that Wikipedia is not supporting conjectures about tomorrow in BLP but an unbiased person should admit that my question was pertinent, accepting that parental involvement is not an outlandish theory. Finally, I do not know how to interpret your last sentence without feeling bitten. I have checked the huge amount of badges that you have and you do not need to remind me your large list of contributions or how tiny is mine. Now it is your turn to decide if you have respected [[WP:DNB]]. For any other comment concerning my behaviour or my ''recenseris persona'', please reply as you wish.[[User:Sam10rc|Sam10rc]] ([[User talk:Sam10rc|talk]]) 23:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::New users get a free pass to do lots of things. However, as mentioned, your conjecture is a blatant violation of [[WP:BLP]] and that is one of the very few things at enwiki that is not tolerated. There is no need for us to discuss anything on my talk page—[[Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann]] is the place to propose actionable improvements to the article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. == |
|||
* The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. ({{phab|T353388}}) |
|||
[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]] |
|||
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. |
|||
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> [[User:Ergo Sum|'''<span style="color:#0645AD">Ergo Sum</span>''']] 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:No: [[Special:Diff/736824846|diff]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
== ArbCom infobox case == |
|||
* The 2024 appointees for the [[:m:Ombuds commission|Ombuds commission]] are [[m:User:だ*ぜ|だ*ぜ]], [[m:User:AGK|AGK]], [[m:User:Ameisenigel|Ameisenigel]], [[m:User:Bennylin|Bennylin]], [[m:User:Daniuu|Daniuu]], [[m:User:Doǵu|Doǵu]], [[m:User:Emufarmers|Emufarmers]], [[m:User:Faendalimas|Faendalimas]], [[m:User:MdsShakil|MdsShakil]], [[m:User:Minorax|Minorax]], [[m:User:Nehaoua|Nehaoua]], [[m:User:Renvoy|Renvoy]] and [[m:User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] as members, with [[m:User:Vermont|Vermont]] serving as steward-observer. |
|||
* Following the [[meta:Stewards/Elections 2024|2024 Steward Elections]], the following editors have been appointed as stewards: [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Albertoleoncio|Albertoleoncio]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/EPIC|EPIC]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/JJMC89|JJMC89]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Johannnes89|Johannnes89]], [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Melos|Melos]] and [[:meta:Stewards/Elections 2024/Statements/Yahya|Yahya]]. |
|||
---- |
|||
Hi, JohnUniq. I wanted to let you know I linked a diff of yours ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=736561725 this one]; not suggesting any wrongdoing on your part) at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes]]. [[User:FourViolas|FourViolas]] ([[User talk:FourViolas|talk]]) 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
:No problem, I'll look later. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 11:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1210490572 --> |
|||
== |
== Incivility == |
||
Thanks for your previous comments on my Talk page concerning the Austen RfC last week. There have been a large number of repetitive edits coming from a single editor apparently using multiple IP accounts for single purpose opposition and personal attacks/accusations against my account. The large number of IP accounts being used is starting to raise the issue of why an obviously experienced editor is almost going out of their way to avoid signing in in the normal way. I have already posted their Talk page and cannot tell if its time to consider spi given this long term issue. I have listed the multiple accounts being used for these personal attacks/accusation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Austen&diff=prev&oldid=736899660]. The matter is further being complicated by the IP now admitting to have a regular account though they don't seem to want to let us know what it is or what the nature of the problem is that keeps them from editing from their regular account for over a six month period. Could you glance at this? [[User:Fountains-of-Paris|Fountains-of-Paris]] ([[User talk:Fountains-of-Paris|talk]]) 18:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Fountains-of-Paris|Fountains-of-Paris]]: There is a large amount of noise at [[Talk:Jane Austen]] but I do not see a problem with the IP. If you are hinting that the IP might be one of the regular editors, I think you are mistaken and that line should not be pursued. It should particularly not be pursued on the talk page of an article. The IP is like many others that I have seen—due to some personal view they like using a shifting IP, and that is endorsed by policy and the community. They are not behaving any differently from the logged-in editors as far as I can see—the IP's comments appear less abrasive than some of the others on that page. Your hatting of the IP's comments has correctly been reverted. The correct procedure is to comment on '''content''' and not on '''contributors''', and the sooner people start doing that, the sooner the talk page will serve its intended purpose. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Would you please look at the discussion on [[Talk:Grace VanderWaal]]? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==What does this mean== |
|||
:I removed a comment and will watch. It's minor but has to be prevented. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Can you please tell me what your phrase means? "uses perfectly formed procedures" |
|||
== Sri Lankan Armed Forces == |
|||
Thank you. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;">[[User:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="color:Black;background:#FFD700;">Kamel</span>]][[User talk:Kamel Tebaast|<span style="background:Black;color:#FFD700;">Tebaast</span>]]</span> 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:This apparently relates to a discussion at [[User talk:Lord Roem#Getting clarity]]. A discourse on my three-week old comment would be unlikely to help the encyclopedia. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. [[User:Oz346|Oz346]] ([[User talk:Oz346|talk]]) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== notes == |
|||
== AN == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Trophy.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''notes''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | thanks im so pleased i need more note on the thevenin ,norton and superposition theory please help me out with this [[User:Jobuuu|Jobuuu]] ([[User talk:Jobuuu|talk]]) 15:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
Thank you for your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Involved_page_protection_by_yours_truly here]. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Revdel_request this] ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
thanks johnuniq how are you , can you help more notes on thevenins , nortons and superposition you see the one i passed through were really good but can you make them more clarified and thanks for the massage time:6:24 pm .®[[User:Jobuuu|Jobuuu]] ([[User talk:Jobuuu|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 15:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: |
:Thanks for the alert. That is bad and I would have blocked the IP /64 range for a lot longer than 72 hours if I'd seen it, although I can see the argument that there's not much point with a throw-away IP. Feel free to contact me if you notice other bad things. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Editor experience invitation == |
|||
== Formal mediation has been requested == |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
| <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Electronic Harassment NPOV--->The [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Electronic Harassment NPOV|request page]], the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy|formal mediation policy]], and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide|guide to formal mediation]], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016. |
|||
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview [[User:Clovermoss/Editor reflections|here]]. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br> |
|||
<small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 06:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I == |
|||
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review]] is now '''no longer accepting new proposals'''. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RfA]]'s structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion: |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Proposal 2]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, provides for the addition of a text box at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3: Add three days of discussion before voting (trial)|Proposals 3]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|3b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Usedtobecool}}, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial)|Proposal 5]]''', initiated by {{noping|SilkTork}}, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6c: Provisional adminship via sortition (admin nomination)|Proposals 6c]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal 6d: Provisional adminship via sortition (criteria to be determined)|6d]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 7: Threaded General Comments|Proposal 7]]''', initiated by {{noping|Lee Vilenski}}, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Proposal 9b]]''', initiated by {{noping|Reaper Eternal}}, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%|Proposals 12c]]''', '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21: Reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21]]''', and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 21b: Slightly reduce threshold of consensus at RfA|21b]]''', initiated by {{noping|City of Silver}}, {{u|Ritchie333}}, and {{u|HouseBlaster}}, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Proposal 13]]''', initiated by {{noping|Novem Lingaue}}, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Proposal 14]]''', initiated by {{noping|Kusma}}, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Proposals 16]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki|16c]]''', initiated by {{noping|Thebiguglyalien}} and {{noping|Soni}}, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboard]]; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16e: Allow the community to initiate recall RfBs|Proposal 16e]]''', initiated by {{noping|BilledMammal}}, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Proposal 17]]''', initiated by {{noping|SchroCat}}, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 18: Normalize the RfB consensus requirements|Proposal 18]]''', initiated by {{noping|theleekycauldron}}, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Proposal 24]]''', initiated by {{noping|SportingFlyer}}, provides for a more robust alternate version of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|optional candidate poll]]. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Proposal 25]]''', initiated by {{noping|Femke}}, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 27: Introduce training/periodic retraining for admins|Proposal 27]]''', initiated by {{noping|WereSpielChequers}}, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms. |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 28: limiting multi-part questions|Proposal 28]]''', initiated by {{noping|HouseBlaster}}, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions. |
|||
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals]]. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her), via: |
|||
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1213660347 --> |
|||
== Fiddling == |
|||
You do understand that "''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Protection_table&diff=prev&oldid=1214113290 what is the point of fiddling with this]''" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Up the Walls|Up the Walls]] ([[User talk:Up the Walls|talk]]) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Please use the appropriate talk page: [[Template talk:Protection table]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit warring == |
|||
Hi, Jon. |
|||
This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism: |
|||
*[[Effie Bancroft]] |
|||
*[[Henry James Byron]]. |
|||
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll watch those two articles for a while but won't act unless more occurs. As you know, the battle continues at [[WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes]] and I would have no problem telling someone to give it a rest until that RfC is resolved. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Arbcom notice== |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->--<span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
== Precious anniversary == |
|||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Five}} |
|||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Gerda! I have to say I haven't done anything in recent months to warrant being rewarded but thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Abby and Brittany Hensel]] == |
|||
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of [[WP:BLP]], as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel&diff=1216382250&oldid=1216381465 the photos in this New Zealand article]''' look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, what an amazing story. It's strange that such an unusual marriage between US citizens living in the US (I think) has only been noted by ''[[The New Zealand Herald]]''. In a few more days, there might be other reports. The photo credit in the nzherald article credits Facebook. I don't know but it's possible that a verified account at Facebook posting about their wedding might be a RS. I would ask for opinions at [[WP:BLPN]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – April 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (March 2024). |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211130465#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#March 2024|Kbdank71]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211130465#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#March 2024|Kosack]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1212001446#Desysop request NrDg|NrDg]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1211247911#Desysop request TLSuda|TLSuda]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
:Anyone noticing this might like to review [[#Reverting of my re-opening of: NPOV dispute in "electronic harassment"]] above. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:See the topic-ban proposal [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories|at ANI]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/739786442#Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories|permalink]]). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
== Request for mediation rejected == |
|||
* An [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure|RfC]] is open to convert all current and future [[WP:OLDDS|community discretionary sanctions]] to (community designated) [[WP:CTOP|contentious topics procedure]]. |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
| The [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|request for formal mediation]] concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Rejected requests|declined]]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Electronic Harassment NPOV|mediation request page]], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Chair|Chairman]] of the Committee, or to the [[User:Mediation Committee|mailing list]]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. |
|||
* The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. ({{Phab|T313405}}) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
*An [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|arbitration case has been opened]] to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy". |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
* Editors are invited to '''[[Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries|sign up]]''' for [[WP:The Core Contest|The Core Contest]], an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital]] and other core articles on Wikipedia. |
|||
---- |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1216613162 --> |
|||
== Case request ''Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals'' declined == |
|||
For the Mediation Committee, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)<br> |
|||
<small>(Delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|on behalf of]] the Mediation Committee.)</small> |
|||
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request ''Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals''. You may view the declined case request using [[Special:Permalink/1216743838#Consensus_process,_censorship,_administrators'_warnings_and_blocks_in_dispute,_and_responses_to_appeals|this link]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Appreciation... == |
|||
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins?[[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I recommend proceeding slowly and waiting for opinions at [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sources into....]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== HELP NEEDED.... == |
|||
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. [[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's better to write meaningful headings (not "HELP NEEDED....") and you should mention what you are talking about (what glitch? what inquiry?). Information about the bell icon is at [[Help:Notifications]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It had a glitch that every time I logged in under a old, now terminated account, I got thrown out and had to use another, my current account to log in. A bug caused this to happen. Now I got some graphics issues going on. Is there a bug on here or is my Android phone acting up? Appreciate the help. The announcement about what happened is not only on my user page, but in my contribs as well. [[User:Four of Sixteen|Four of Sixteen]] ([[User talk:Four of Sixteen|talk]]) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Module:Age == |
|||
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Sure but I need to understand exactly what you mean. Please provide an example of wikitext you would like to enter and what it should produce. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::For example, here you enter <nowiki>{{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}</nowiki>. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You mean [[Template:Start date]]? That does not seem to have anything to do with [[Module:Age]]. That template wants year/month/day, for example, <code><nowiki>{{start date|1993|02|24}}</nowiki></code> is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{tl|start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module: |
|||
:::::*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}} |
|||
:::::I recommend using the following which is hard to mess up: |
|||
:::::*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}} |
|||
:::::Using <code><nowiki>{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}</nowiki></code> would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying function <code>getDates</code> to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It is hard to talk in abstract terms. ''What'' do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?{{pb}}<code><nowiki>{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}</nowiki></code>{{pb}} If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is <nowiki>{{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}</nowiki>. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::What is the wanted output from <nowiki>{{MDY|2|5|1993}}</nowiki>? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I plan on using the templates that are typed at the bottom of the Age module. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|12}}Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example: |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}} |
|||
*<code><nowiki>{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}</nowiki></code> → {{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}} |
|||
A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, <code><nowiki>{{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}</nowiki></code>. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in [[Module:Age/sandbox]]. See the following diff. |
|||
{{#invoke:convert/tester|compare|Age}} |
|||
[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I've changed the module I imported to the wiki, but it won't allow to values to be displayed for other than "Birth date and age". I've added "Extract" and Death date and age" to the wiki, so far. [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tl|extract}} uses [[Module:Date]] to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example <code><nowiki>{{extract|April 1, 2024}}</nowiki></code> or three numbers, for example <code><nowiki>{{extract|2024|4|1}}</nowiki></code>. I won't be changing that. |
|||
::What does <code><nowiki>{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}</nowiki></code> display? |
|||
::If something does not work, you would need to provide an example of wikitext used as input and the exact output that is displayed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Doesn't matter now. It was because I had the dates the wrong way round, didn't import the "If preview" modules and nor did I import the "Main other" template. Anyway, thanks for all the help you've been to me to achieve what I've needed to do :) [[User:ValenciaThunderbolt|ValenciaThunderbolt]] ([[User talk:ValenciaThunderbolt|talk]]) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Signature Requirements == |
|||
Hey, I saw you undid my change to [[WP:CUSTOMSIG/P]] but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states: |
|||
* A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. |
|||
* It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. |
|||
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. |
|||
[[User:ThunderPeel2001|WikiMane (TP2001)]] ([[User talk:ThunderPeel2001|talk]]) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|ThunderPeel2001}} Please discuss issues on the appropriate talk page, [[WT:Signatures]]. That provides an easily found history of discussion relevant to the page and gives those watching an opportunity to express an opinion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== That IP LTA range again == |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, |
|||
Remember that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82/40 R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February?] Remember how there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnuniq&diff=1211122251&oldid=1211117989 some question] about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heiner_Rindermann&diff=1219048905&oldid=1219041596 returned to the topic area], so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted. |
|||
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann]], but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.) |
|||
Thanks, [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:One of the exceptions to topic bans listed at [[WP:BANEX]] is reverting "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Now that the discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached a clear conclusion that this material violates BLP policy and must be removed, restoring it seems to qualify as an example of an obvious violation, and my revert is an exception to topic bans as defined by that policy. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|talk]]) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tageb%C3%BCcher the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit] to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed [[Joe job]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tristan_albatross who it was]. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82]] ([[User talk:2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82|talk]]) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Johnuniq}} Oddly enough this one blocked me earlier this afternoon. The strange part is it lasted for one pending edit (which directed me here in the block message) and then seems to have been fixed. |
|||
:::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|Awshort}} Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{u|Johnuniq}} experienced this again tonight (currently), but I went to whatismyipaddress.com to try to figure out the issue. |
|||
:::::::2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 |
|||
:::::::Blocked |
|||
:::::::2600:1004:b118:*:*:*:*:* |
|||
:::::::Me, on Verizon's cell service. |
|||
:::::::The website above shows it as ISP:Verizon Business, so figured I would give an update since it may affect other users as well. |
|||
:::::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{ping|Awshort}} A block of [[Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40|2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40]] applies to all IP addresses that start with <code>2600:1004:B1</code>. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Moana 2]] - please semiprotect== |
|||
There is a huge amount of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moana_2&action=history IP disruption here]. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==The Merchant of Venice== |
|||
Can you or somebody do something about [[The Merchant of Venice]]? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. [[User:Masato.harada|Masato.harada]] ([[User talk:Masato.harada|talk]]) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:My [[User talk:AlexAndrews#Procedures|note]] at the talk of {{u|AlexAndrews}} is dated 06:14, 22 April 2024. Since then, only one edit has occurred at [[The Merchant of Venice]] and it was to add an innocuous external link. My suggestion would be to start a new section at article talk with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text or to restore a particular version. Then see what other opinions are presented. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. I will watch and ensure edit warring against consensus does not occur. Editors do not need to respond to everything posted on a talk page. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment ''"Edit warring against consensus will not occur."'' and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, ''my'' reading. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had ''one'' comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Merchant_of_Venice&diff=prev&oldid=1221159614] Again, I'm fighting my sarcastic urges, and again, I hope... Nevermind. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I was unaware until now that I was being discussed behind my back on this talk page, but I see that another editor from the article's talk page managed to find this discussion. |
|||
: |
|||
:For the record, I am not "''waging a campaign to completely rewrite''" the article; I am '''adding encyclopedic content''' to improve the article. |
|||
: |
|||
:I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors appear to be threatened by the addition of encyclopedic content to the article, especially when '''the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia''' is to be a '''complete''' source of '''encyclopedic content''': |
|||
:{{blockquote | the project's purpose, which is to create a free '''encyclopedia''', in a variety of languages, presenting '''the sum of all human knowledge'''.}} [[User:AlexAndrews|AlexAndrews]] ([[User talk:AlexAndrews|talk]]) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If you have not disabled [[WP:NOTIFY|notifications]], you would have been notified about this discussion in my [[Special:Diff/1220361493|23 April 2024 comment]]. You can probably still see the notification by clicking the bell icon at the top of any page. It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article. The problem is that others disagree. There is no practical way for disputes at Wikipedia to be resolved other than through discussion ending in [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. At the moment, your proposals do not have consensus. That means you are likely to be blocked if disruption continues. You can get independent opinions and advice at [[WP:Teahouse]]. If you do that, please '''do not''' try to explain details about the issue—they won't want to know. Questions people there might offer opinions on are (a) who has consensus at [[Talk:The Merchant of Venice]]; and (b) what might be done to resolve the disagreement. The standard answer regarding (b) is at [[WP:DR]]. I was going to say a bit more but while looking at another page I just noticed that {{user|AlexAndrews}} has been indefinitely blocked. Since I've written all this, I'll post it anyway. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Grace VanderWaal]] == |
|||
There is renewed IP vandalism there. Would you kindly semi-protect? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – May 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (April 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1220304714#Resysop request (Nyttend)|Nyttend]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|JohnOwens]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1216602202#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024|Killiondude]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218467362#Handing in my mop|MelanieN]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
== Invention of theTelephone == |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
I believe there is an errant sentence in the second paragraph: |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
"It was invented in Carrick road mullinahone by Jack and Johnny Shelly." |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|Joe Roe]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
Should be removed. ([[User:Cecarow|Cecarow]] ([[User talk:Cecarow|talk]]) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC))<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cecarow|Cecarow]] ([[User talk:Cecarow#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cecarow|contribs]]) 17:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
|||
:Thanks for pointing that out. The junk text was added by [[Special:Contributions/178.167.254.237|178.167.254.237]] on [[Special:Diff/736620983|19:03, 28 August 2016]]. Another editor has now removed it, and I checked the IP's other edits. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 requests for adminship review]] has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|creating a discussion-only period]] (3b) and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|administrator elections]] (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|creating a reminder of civility norms]] (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|full report]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
* Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. [[phab:T280531|T280531]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Surreal Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Surreal Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You sir are a beautiful soul! I've lost count how many times you've said something ''exactly'' in the way I'd have said it or thought of it and seem to have your head screwed on the right way unlike many here. Keep up the words of wisdom and positive input you have in discussions! ♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 12:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:@[[User:Dr. Blofeld|Dr. Blofeld]]: Thanks very much! I appreciate your kind thoughts. I groaned the other day when realizing I have made 1065 edits at ANI, and 242 at Jimbo's talk. Perfect example of [[WP:NOTHERE]]! Unfortunately mere words are unable to influence dedicated POV pushers, and nothing stopped the recent destruction. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
== Email: Your opinion on a technical matter == |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|Conflict of interest management]]'' has been closed. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
Hi, Johnuniq. I sent you an email about a technical matter. I let [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] know that I would be emailing you. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. |
|||
:Hi [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer]]. I'll have a look and send an email within a couple of hours. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* A [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024|'''New Pages Patrol backlog drive''']] is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|new pages feed]]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Participants|'''Sign up here to participate!''']] |
|||
* Voting for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)]] election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024#Voting|voting page on Meta-Wiki]] and '''[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/396|cast your vote here!]]''' |
|||
---- |
|||
== Um == |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1220239146 --> |
|||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == |
|||
I'm thinking of doing at least all of the missing articles on Aboriginal tribes in WA, and a few things would be easier if I could get templates for drawing kinship (p.43 of book below, or even simple things like a 4 square thing I could write details in as [https://books.google.it/books?id=5kIw2yAXBcsC&pg=PA45 here, for putting in] [[moiety|moieties]] etc. I'd appreciate if you could spare a sec to strain the bean and drop me some advice as to where to go to learn the ABCs of such stuff.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{talk page watcher}} I wonder if you could use a cladogram. There is a good example at [[Cheetah#Taxonomy]]. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, {{tl|cladogram}} looks useful, although all the above is beyond my scope. It should be possible to use a tricked-up table to emulate the p. 45 box diagram in [https://books.google.com/books?id=Nq0gAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 the book]. The difficulty would be getting the icons which would have to be free as in liberty. The circles/triangles diagram on p. 43 looks more tricky to do in a general way, although I could make diagrams to match them quite easily. Can you (Nishidani) give an idea of how many of each kind of diagram are wanted? Are you talking about creating new articles? Do we have an existing article on the topic you want to create? By "drawing kinship", do you mean to reproduce the p. 43 diagram with different labels, or do you mean to generalize it so some diagrams would have different shapes as well as different text?<p>There is an example of a complex ancestry at [[Darwin–Wedgwood family]]. I think I've seen a simpler ancestry diagram, but I can't find it at the moment. There are some tree diagrams at [[Red–black tree]] where each diagram has been individually created and uploaded. Is that feasible for your plan (I could do it), or do you need something generated from a template? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks [[User talk:DrChrissy|DrChrissy]], I'll experiment with that. [[A. P. Elkin]] once divided Australian kinship systems into 5 types that were valid over 500 odd tribes, so the number would be limited. Australian kinship systems have been an obsession in anthropology since [[A. R. Radcliffe-Brown]] started writing about them in a classic paper in 1914. They are really fascinating because in their typological marriage/descent variations you can produce a things we find incomprehensible, like a child being called father to his father, the father being child etc. But two or so are quite complex, and that is what I must avoid because this is an encyclopedia, not a recipe for readerly headaches, so I'm thinking of simplified clan/totemic/moiety schemata basically. As to the diagram on p.45, I didn't mean to imply shoehorning in images of kangaroos , etc., but simply within each section the native name and its meaning, so that you have a 4 conjoined rectangles, basically one square with 4 diagonals, and two words written within each. I'll look round at the varieties of solution in both of your suggestions and try to figure out some arrangement for a while. No hurry on this. Ands I don't want people wasting time on it: just casting about to find a mechanical solution. Cheers and thanks[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
@[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]]: You want a table something like this (p. 45)? |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable" cellpadding=15 |
|||
|- style="height: 90px;" |
|||
| style="border: 2px solid black; padding: 18px; width: 150px;" | Banaka<br> |
|||
(Pannaga)<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
savage goanna (dry)<br> |
|||
active & abstract |
|||
| style="border: 2px solid black; padding: 18px; width: 150px;" | Burung<br> |
|||
(Purunu)<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
lazy goanna (moist)<br> |
|||
passive & abstract |
|||
|- style="height: 90px;" |
|||
| style="border: 2px solid black; padding: 18px;" | Karimera<br> |
|||
(Karimarra)<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
plains kangaroo (fierce)<br> |
|||
active & concrete |
|||
| style="border: 2px solid black; padding: 18px;" | Palyeria<br> |
|||
(Palt'arri)<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
hill kangaroo (mild)<br> |
|||
passive & concrete |
|||
|} |
|||
The details can be adjusted later, but that's basically all that is wanted? And you would like some way to enter the table with a template to simplify the wikitext and to make the tables consistent? That can be done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Jeezus, this after a stroll and a coffee. I dawdle in the streets, and the serious chaps do my work for me. I'll have to make penance, forego eating lunch or sumfen. That's really wonderful. Thanks for the effort. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::One approach I have used in the past is to create what I want in a Powerpoint slide and then send it to commons as my own work. It might be best if it is close to another table/diagram to attribute it e.g. "Adapted from XXXX". (-- This unsigned comment is by DrChrissy.) <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 14:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agree with DrChrissy. Both drawing in PowerPoint or in MS Word have worked great for me in the past. [[User:IjonTichyIjonTichy|Ijon Tichy ]] ([[User talk:IjonTichyIjonTichy|talk]]) 14:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, I'm just plain dumb with these things. Anytime I try to master what you guys take effortlessly to be the kindergarten alphabet of web design, I end up in the Three Stooges's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usQem53fDH8 Alphabet soup] recited backwards. No wonder I was advised at the end of the first year of primary school to repeat the year. I know I could master these things but it would mean not reading a book or two that interests me. Result, I parasitize the whiz/wise guys, sycophantically smooching on their benevolence. Sigh [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 14:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It is probably worth pointing out that the Powerpoint method can be quite cumbersome to make even simple changes to. If you notice a typo after you have uploaded to the article, this must be changed in the file, saved, resubmitted to commons, then uploaded into the article. The method used above by Johnuniq would take 5 seconds to edit whereas the Powerpoint method would take at least 5 minutes. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 14:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Dear Wikimedian, |
|||
@[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]]: I'm ready to do something with this if you still want a template to generate the p. 45 table shown above. I'm thinking of syntax like this: |
|||
:<code><nowiki>{{table| Top ! left |Top!right| Bottom!left| Bottom!right}}</nowiki></code> |
|||
I added some superfluous spaces in the above to show they could be used but would be ignored. As a convenience, the exclamation mark would be replaced with <code><br /></code> to give a line break. The above would generate this table: |
|||
<table class="wikitable" cellpadding="15"><tr style="height:90px"><td style="padding:18px;border:2px solid black;width:150px">Top<br />left</td><td style="padding:18px;border:2px solid black;width:150px">Top<br />right</td></tr><tr style="height:90px"><td style="padding:18px;border:2px solid black;width:150px">Bottom<br />left</td><td style="padding:18px;border:2px solid black;width:150px">Bottom<br />right</td></tr></table> |
|||
Is that what is wanted? The size of the table and therefore the size of each cell can be pondered later, but initially I was thinking each table would be the same size. If something other than two rows by two columns were wanted, some modifications could be made. You would probably want options like <code>left</code> and <code>right</code> to float the table to the left or right; that would allow text to sit beside the table as can be done with images. Stuff like having two tables side-by-side would be tricky. Please think of a suitable name for the template. Using "table" is not a good idea because lots of templates start with that word ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Table&namespace=10]). Can you think of a short but suitable name? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Bronchitis, picked up while picking someone else's olives for them under drizzling rain for 9 hours, hence late reply. I think you've already gone far beyond the call of duty in providing me with the model and its variation above, and I hate to drag other people into areas they are probably more unfamiliar with than even my pretentious self. For the moment the model you provided is fine. Highest regards [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Stop being difficult! How many of these tables are likely to occur? I gather it's at least a dozen so a template is best because the one thing (the template) can be tweaked if necessary to adjust every table. You might be overlooking the fact that techo people love doing techo stuff, and I have been waiting for a reason to work with something known as mw.html for months, and this is a great excuse to experiment. As soon as you're dry, please answer the questions! Are you planning to use templates like the above? what is a good name for a template? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 08:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::'Life wasn't meant to be easy' as the grazier muttered while shooting the last remnants of the Leitchi-leitchi tribe to clear his pastoral lease for a sheep run. I can tweak the ones (how can 'one' have a plural?') you already provided, as just now at [[Ngarluma]]. All I'm familiar with is Elkin's classification of 5 systems, and the one you provided covers many of the North Western Australian cases. To give you an idea of the kariera system, not just as four names, as displayed, and what the interrelations are: |
|||
:::: ↓Panaka = Burong↓ |
|||
:::: ↑Karimeri =Palyeria↑ |
|||
::::where = means an intermarrying section, while ↓↑ (should be one vertical with arrowheads for each tip, indicating mother and child sections. Thus a Panaka totem man can only marry a Burong totem woman, and their offspring will be Palyeria. Ideally (and I think it's too much of a headache) the = would intersect the vertical line dividing each group of two, while the ↑↓ arrow would be outside the rectangles on each side. See! We're aalrteady in more shit than Biggles, and 'don't go there', or if you do, ask me to email you a kilo of panadol![[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::OK, you bamboozled me. I guess I'll have to add myself to your list of stalkers and see what you get up to. As soon as you use several of those templates I will swoop. I'll content myself with adding an up/down arrow ↕ here, but plonking arrows outside the table might be a challenge. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'll ask the local monastics if they have some old flagella in their cellars: that may help me ease the [[Ayenbite of Inwyt|agenbite of inwit]] for getting you involved, and incidentally loosen the bronchia by reverberation. Disinvolvulate yourself any time[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. |
|||
== Clutch Plague hoax == |
|||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. |
|||
Well, thanks for notifying me. I still think it's likely we should leave it as a redirect, but maybe not. Maybe if there is a deleted page, the person will discover why it is not an article or redirect by looking at the reason. I appreciate your look at this and your findings (and sharing them with me). I'm just trying to make WP a better resource, as you can probably see if you check most of my edits which have for the last couple years, especially, been formatting, revising and editing references/sources.--[[User:SidP|SidP]] ([[User talk:SidP|talk]]) 19:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I replied at your talk to keep the discussion in one place. For anyone noticing this, please check [[User talk:SidP#Clutch Plague]] because there is a joke browser extension which is effectively malware as it changes certain terms when someone edits a page, and that injects hoaxes into articles. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. |
|||
== You've got mail == |
|||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. |
|||
Check your inbox. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Got it thanks. FYI some [[WP:Notifications]] feature means an editor is notified when an email is sent, so YGM is not needed (and not needed for me anyway). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
== A beer for you! == |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 --> |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Export hell seidel steiner.png|70px]] |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hi {{U|Johnuniq}}, thank you for your work repairing broken convert templates. [[File:Face-smile.svg|20px]] -- [[User:Marek69|<span style="color: DarkBlue">Marek</span>]].[[Special:Contributions/Marek69|<span style="color: Blue"><small>69</small></span>]]<small> [[User_talk:Marek69|<span style="color: Green"><sup>''talk''</sup></span>]]</small> 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:Thanks, fixing convert gives me something to do, and the beer looks great! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins == |
|||
== [[User:Judtojud]] == |
|||
Hi there! Phase I of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review]] has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus: |
|||
The above editor is a newcomer and should not be [[WP:Bite|bitten.]] Thank you. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]]: Sure, but "newcomer" is not right. Consider: |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/745754969|old Wikipedia drama]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/745754280|details of old drama]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/746740260|srlink on Jimbo's article]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/747538657|"God-king" (Jimbo)]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/747534378|undue interest in an admin with an article]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/747412921|reverted by an editor]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/747594546|adds text naming the editor to a guideline]] |
|||
:I noticed the progression and felt the interest warranted my nasty response ([[Special:Diff/747594769|diff]])—the "back off" might have been unclear but what I meant was that future editing should not continue pokes of that editor. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Proposals 2 and 9b''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA|Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations|Require links for claims of specific policy violations]] |
|||
:@[[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]]: I watch [[Template:Wikipedia]] which led to noticing the following comment by [[User:Judtojud|Judtojud]] at [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria's]] talk: |
|||
* '''Proposal 3b''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)|Make the first two days discussion-only]] |
|||
:*[[Special:Diff/747891969|Before you revert me again honey]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 13''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Admin elections]] |
|||
:There is no good way to respond. Who is going to spend half an hour drafting a careful explanation of the many ways that comment is inappropriate, particularly when the user almost certainly knows how inappropriate it is already. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Proposal 14''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements|Suffrage requirements]] |
|||
* '''Proposals 16 and 16c''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs|Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_16c%3A_Community_recall_process_based_on_dewiki|Community recall process based on dewiki]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 17''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions|Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 24''' ('''[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process|phase II discussion]]'''): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process|Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 25''' (implemented): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed|Require nominees to be extended confirmed]] |
|||
See the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|project page]] for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[user talk:theleekycauldron|talk]]), via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1218650058 --> |
|||
== Response to your question at (a now-archived) RFPP == |
|||
Related: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#De-linking Wikipedia]]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. {{user|Judtojud}} is now indeffed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Hi! I haven't been able to get on my computer in a few days and didn't see your reply until now. Here's my rationale for connecting those IPs that I tried to post there: |
|||
== Talk:Grace VanderWaal== |
|||
Couple things: First, placing "AGF" anywhere on an article talk page is a poor choice. Placing it in a section header is far worse. Second, identifying "opponents" only encourages BATTLE mentality. If you read my comment, which perhaps you did not do, you'll note that I support the content concerns. While I appreciate your interjection into the disputes, I think it best to tone down the behavioral issues, which I think my edit did. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You do great work battling the people who try to exploit Wikipedia to promote things. However, continuing those battles with good editors (not merely "good faith" editors) is pointless. Ridiculous, in fact. Your [[Special:Diff/748554128|edit]] pokes your opponent by declaring that (a) they are unfit to write a talk page heading, and (b) your judgment is superior to theirs. Wrong on both counts. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::So you assume this was a way for me to battle with editors and express ownership of some sort when I agree with the content concerns and am trying to direct editors away from treating the article as a battleground?! You read a lot into that one edit, and I have to say that you've nothing to hang your interpretation upon except your own assumptions. |
|||
::I'm happy to address each of your assumptions if you want to stand by them. I'd rather you consider that I am in good faith trying to de-escalate a dispute in a manner that follows our policies and guidelines, and is one way that I've found to be rather effective. If you have suggestions on how to better address such escalating disputes, I'm certainly listening. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::The situation is this: You engaged at [[Grace VanderWaal]] by making 9 edits to remove certain links in 4 days. You have made numerous edits at [[Talk:Grace VanderWaal]] to promote your case. That makes you involved in a dispute with other editors so changing their comments is highly problematic. If you were uninvolved and authorized to police talk-page comments, it might be reasonable to edit war with [[WP:TPO]] violations three times, but you are <u>involved</u>. I assume that did not occur to you because you know you are right and the edit warring policy only applies to other people who are wrong. The total absurdity of the situation is that, despite your efforts, the dispute was settled before your mothering of a very innocent talk page heading ([[Special:Diff/748554128|1]] + [[Special:Diff/748676008|2]] + [[Special:Diff/748832905|3]])—your edit warring has served only to prolong the battle. |
|||
:::The icing on the cake is that the talk page heading that you think warrants an edit war to change was extremely pertinent and reasonable given that it was in response to [[Special:Diff/748450552|this edit]]. It also had the desired effect and peace has resumed despite your intervention. Why are you so concerned as to post here when you have made no comment at the talk page of the author of that intemperate edit summary? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, I'm involved in disputes in the article. That does not prevent me from attempting to de-escalate disputes there, nor should it. |
|||
::::I changed no one's comments. Section headings are owned by no one, and are subject to change per WP:TALK. |
|||
::::Whose edits prolonged the battle? Yours, mine, the two editors taking shots at each other? |
|||
::::You edit-warred with me. I came here to address it. I'm doing my best to listen and understand your perspective. |
|||
::::{{tq|I assume that did not occur to you because you know you are right and the edit warring policy only applies to other people who are wrong.}} You keep returning to bad faith assumptions, and it's difficult to see if anything else is driving your arguments. I'm trying to. |
|||
::::I'll try to refactor rather than revert section headings in the future. You are correct, it goes across much better when I'm not involved. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In conclusion, a known-good editor wrote a talk page heading that was very mild and completely pertinent to the issue being addressed, and I support that version of the heading, but your judgment overrides both of us, and you are entitled to have your version of the heading retained because you are willing to edit war more than me. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe I've presented something quite different and what I've presented is being ignored in favor of bad faith assumptions. |
|||
::::::I continue to be open to better solutions, alternative solutions, exceptions, etc. In the case of finding ways to de-escalate behavioral problems, I actually seek them out. |
|||
::::::Maybe you're seeing something that I'm not, but whatever it may be isn't being communicated. I think it best to disagree at this point and move on. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi, sorry, a bit of a late reply - after blocks of [[User:Default012Google12100]], [[User:DefaultGoogle54321]], and [[User:DefaultGoogle13100]] ([https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=26307672#Global_lock_for_Default012Google12100 all confirmed as TyMega as far as I'm aware]), a series of IPs come in to try and remove or insert the same information as those blocked accounts. While obviously I'm not a CU, it looks like nearly every IP editing this has been hopping around the world and comes up as a proxy/web-host/non-residential IP when I check them. The IPs, specifically on this page, tend to target a small subset of pages (some WWE wrestlers, Patrick Stewart, some rappers, Blink 182) that match up with [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TyMega/Archive#17_December_2020|this 2020 SPI for TyMega]]. Also [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TyMega/Archive#10_March_2024|looks like he's used proxies before]]. |
|||
I'm afraid I don't see how your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_VanderWaal&diff=prev&oldid=749723813] and comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grace_VanderWaal&diff=prev&oldid=749724061] are anything other than exactly what you argued against above. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:As I mentioned, you are great at the routine work of battling SPAs who try to exploit Wikipedia to promote something. The problem is the lack of judgment—like the carpenter with only a hammer who thinks every problem looks like a nail, you see every editor who adds an external link that can be challenged as an obstacle to be run over. It's ridiculous. Think of the damage the unpleasantness causes. Why are you posting on my talk page? You are the one who does not have consensus, so posting here is just another form of bullying, presumably in an attempt to drive away your opponents one-by-one. And drop the [[WP:FOC]] nonsense—do you think I haven't seen that tactic? Posting a link is no substitute for engaging with what good editors are saying. Indeed, ducking issues by posting a link instead of offering a substantive response is disruptive and shows contempt for other editors. Do you have to win every battle? Why not accept that the editor who added the link is a great benefit to the encyclopedia, and leave them alone? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Any unpleasantness beyond the AGF, BATTLE, and OWN problems are hard to discern. I've tried to engage both of you to bring the focus of the dispute to the content, and try to work out what other concerns you may have. This isn't personal for me. I wish it wasn't for you. I'm sorry. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know it's not personal for you. It is purely mechanical, and that is the problem. Wikipedia is all about getting an outcome that helps the encyclopedia. Removing a couple of possibly redundant youtube links is simply not worth the disruption and unpleasantness in a situation like this. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nothing "mechanical" about it either, unless you think following general consensus is problem. Likewise, I fail to see how the content changes help the encyclopedia. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry for clogging up RFPP! [[User:Jellyfish|<small style="color:#0080FF;background:#EAEAFF;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">jellyfish</small>]] [[User talk:Jellyfish|✉]] 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2016|ArbCom Elections 2016]]: Voting now open! == |
|||
:This relates to an [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/05#Patrick Stewart on stage and screen|archived request for protection]]. We would expect further socks, but I was hoping you could either say that nothing more was happening at the moment or give a diff or timestamp of a recent edit by a user or IP that was not blocked, then say how it is known that the unblocked user is the sock. No solid proof is needed, just an indication. Some justification would be needed for protection and more would be needed for a block. If you can briefly identify a current problem I will protect. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::My apologies, yeah, nothing more was happening at the time of reporting (or now). So far they've been easy enough to pick up on and the proxy IPs tend to get blocked quickly, so if you think they're fine without page protection I'm inclined to agree. I'd rather not ward off the occasional good IP editor who edits the articles. [[User:Jellyfish|<small style="color:#0080FF;background:#EAEAFF;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">jellyfish</small>]] [[User talk:Jellyfish|✉]] 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fine. Let me know when it next flares up but I'll need a diff or two and a brief explanation. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== ''[[Moana 2]]'' == |
|||
''[[Moana 2]]'' has been getting a lot of edit warring from IPs that are adding unsourced material and deleting sourced material repeatedly against consensus. Please semi-protect if you think appropriate. All the best, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 03:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Listen, the writing credit doesn't have to wait because David G. Derrick received sole "Written & Directed By" credit while Jason Hand and Dana LeDoux Miller received "Co-Directed By" credits. Was that too much to ask?? [[Special:Contributions/2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3|2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3]] ([[User talk:2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3|talk]]) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please comment on the film's article at the article's Talk page. There you can present your sources. See [[WP:V]]. No need to be in such a hurry. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Serial vandal== |
|||
Is it time to block [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:80.94.198.226 this vandalism-only account]? -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The wonderful Bishonen has dealt with that. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – June 2024 == |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (May 2024). |
|||
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1222103388#Resysop request (Graham Beards)|Graham Beards]] |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Deskana]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221623112#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024|Mets501]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221692285#Desysop request Staxringold|Staxringold]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221620229#Inactive bureaucrat (Deskana)|Deskana]] |
|||
|[[Special:Permalink/1221956999#Standing down as bureaucrat (Warofdreams)| Warofdreams]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Johnuniq. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2016|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. |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1221703338#Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024|Dreamy Jazz]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates|the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/399|the voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/28&oldid=750606345 --> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
== AWB cite reordering == |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II|Phase II]] of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review|2024 RfA review]] has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I|Phase I]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
Hello. Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=751348217&oldid=751337656 your !vote on AWB cite reordering]. I wonder how many No !voters have considered my point about [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Compromise_proposal:_AWB_bot_ref_reordering|the Reforder option]], which I have voiced in two different places. I don't want to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] by repeating it over and over in that RfC. If you have considered it, can you say why you're opposed to it? The point is: "The idea of the Reforder option is that intentional out-of-sequence ordering will be far more effective if not lost in a forest of <u>un</u>intentional out-of-sequence ordering. In that sense AWB can be the friend of editors who use cite ordering, not their adversary."<br />The only argument against Reforder I've seen goes something like "I shouldn't have to do anything to prevent AWB reordering", and that seems rigidly unconstructive (and self-defeating) to me. It's an extra 30 seconds work for each rare case. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">☎</span>]] 12:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* The [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:Nuke|Nuke]] feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [[Phab:T43351|T43351]] |
|||
:[[User:Mandruss|Mandruss]]: The RfC is too complex and is unfortunately occurring at a time when there is an extremely large and silly proposal on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|same page]] regarding make-work icons ("Access locks: Visual Design RFC"). I haven't really considered extra proposals such as yours because the fundamental question should be settled first. I would prefer that any RfC on a wide-ranging topic be first drafted to get clean wording that offers a comprehensible set of choices for consideration. Adding options afterwards adds too much confusion, and that is the primary reason I only commented on the core topic. |
|||
:Your proposal concerns whether AWB editors should continue shuffling references, but editors could flag certain sequences of references to not be reordered. Perhaps, but there are a couple of problems. First, it supports the concept that technical editors (such as myself) should feel free to make hundreds of edits per day (some manage hundreds per hour which should violate the bot policy IMHO), where those edits impose a technocrat's view of an ideal encyclopedia. Many such minor fixes are helpful, but they ignore the fact that real people write the actual content, and steam-rollering those real people is a very bad idea. I know of at least two long-term editors who have been indefinitely blocked for mindless fiddling via bots, and one of them, now unblocked, has commented at the RfC to support automatic reordering! |
|||
:A second problem with the proposal is that it requires content-builders to put yet more ugly wikitext into articles, possibly in multiple places. Writers spend hours staring at the wikitext and they often hate all the mumbo jumbo, so forcing more on them does not seem desirable. I think a single template-per-page might be ok, but that should be examined after the main RfC. I would prefer an opt-in system where bots did not routinely reorder refs, but an editor could add a template to request that a bot clean the page. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
==Twinkle objections== |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics|Venezuelan politics]]'' has been closed. |
|||
re [[special:diff/751953888]] which of the 7 points at [[WP:NOTDIR]] is related to your removal of this information? |
|||
* The Committee is [[Special:Permalink/1225426349#Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers|seeking volunteers for various roles]], including access to the [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest VRT queue]]. |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
Also re [[special:diff/751953641]] why is it inappropriate to list a reliably sourced secret service name in the other_names field? What do you think this field should be restricted to? [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* WikiProject Reliability's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|unsourced statements drive]] is happening in June 2024 to replace {{tl|citation needed}} tags with references! '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability/June 2024 Drive|Sign up here to participate!]]''' |
|||
:How many of the recent attempts to add peripheral nicknames to articles have been reverted by a variety of editors? I see: |
|||
:*[[George H. W. Bush]] |
|||
:*[[Ronald Reagan]] |
|||
:*[[Jenna Bush Hager]] |
|||
:*[[Twinkle]] |
|||
:*[[Talk:Hillary Clinton#Frigidaire]] |
|||
:An encyclopedia does not attempt to record every factoid because it would then be impossible to see useful information. If wanting further feedback, please try [[WP:TEAHOUSE]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
== Wikipedia editing == |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)</small>}} |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1227360647 --> |
|||
== Deleting material from Talk pages == |
|||
My apologies Johnuniq, I am a new Wikipedia editor/user, and don't fully understand the nuances of proper posting. I am merely interested in improving the reliability of Wikipedia for other users and encouraging non-biased accounts of contested articles. What would be the proper way for me to progress towards this goal? [[User:Αγάπη Λάχεσις|Αγάπη Λάχεσις]] ([[User talk:Αγάπη Λάχεσις|talk]]) 07:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
A user has deleted material from this talk page several times, and it has been hard to persuade him that we are trying to help him become familiar with guidelines. Can you help? See the edit history here: [[Talk:BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop]]. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:That's a perfect message, thanks. I replied at your talk ([[User talk:Αγάπη Λάχεσις]]). [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 08:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I only looked at the latest. It's an inappropriate removal from a talk page but I would let it pass as unimportant. I'll watch for a while. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, but he's done it several times now, to more than one Talk page. Someone told him that it is not the correct thing to do, but I think he needs to hear it from an admin. All the best, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Module:ICCProgression]] == |
|||
== Thanks for rolling out the welcome wagon! == |
|||
Hi John, a user asked me to import this module on bnwiki. So, I imported [[:bn:মডিউল:খেলাঘর/আফতাবুজ্জামান/পরীক্ষা|here]] for testing. As this module produce en digit, so i did [[:bn:Special:diff/7412734|this edit]]. On other module, usually this converts en to bn digit but it is not working here (see [[:bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:খেলাঘর ২|test page]]). I am not sure what i am doing wrong. If possible, please take a look. [[User:আফতাবুজ্জামান|আফতাবুজ্জামান]] ([[User talk:আফতাবুজ্জামান|talk]]) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi Johnuniq, |
|||
:That was too easy! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for the welcome message, gave me some good starter info! |
|||
== Vandal returns to CKY article == |
|||
+10 internet points |
|||
Would you mind revisiting the [[CKY (band)]] article? You recently blocked an IP editor there for edit warring after they continuously deleted sourced information in favor of incorrect info. They’ve returned using the same IP address, as well as a new IP, and are continuing the same pattern. Article protection may be needed, if possible. Thanks. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 19:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:76CelicaGT|76CelicaGT]] ([[User talk:76CelicaGT|talk]]) 10:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|NJZombie}} Digging around shows that I blocked {{user|82.35.138.237}} for a week on 6 May 2024. The IP has a point in that [https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/11/07/cky-what-does-it-mean the ref] does not mention anything I can see about "original name" or "abbreviation". The infobox claim of "also known as" is also not mentioned. I will semi-protect [[CKY (band)]] for a month due to the long-term shifting IP edit warring but the issue needs to be examined on article talk. The solution is to find another reliable source that justifies the current wording or to reword the article to align more closely with what the ref says. The IP's edits are definitely not vandalism—see [[WP:VAND]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:76CelicaGT|76CelicaGT]]: You are welcome! It is possible to become a little jaded after a while at Wikipedia, and it is good to see helpful edits from a new editor! Feel free to ask my opinion about any issues you encounter. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::Within the source, the interviewer mentions that the "the real name of the band is Camp Kill Yourself" framed within a question to the drummer, Jess Margera who goes on to explain that they wanted expand the name into making a horror film. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 23:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::I saw that. It said nothing about "original name" or "abbreviation". I'm just pointing out what should occur and there is no benefit from continuing here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There are now four sources backing up both that the band's name is short for Camp Kill Yourself, and that Camp Kill Yourself is what the band went by previously before shortening it. [[User:NJZombie|NJZombie]] ([[User talk:NJZombie|talk]]) 01:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Page merges pending for long time == |
|||
== NFLjunkie22 reverted again == |
|||
Hi, I found your name on a list of recently active admin. I want to bring to your attention an issue that has been annoying me for some time, but I don't know how to handle it myself. This relates to the birds of New Zealand. |
|||
Hi Johnuniq! It seems that NFLjunkie22 has reverted another edit about misandry on the [[Zara Larsson]] page again. I gave him another warning on his [[User talk:NFLjunkie22#Edit War Warning|talk page]] saying that it could be considered his 6th revert. Should I do anything on top of the extra warning or is that enough? Thanks, [[User:Jith12|Jith12]] ([[User talk:Jith12|talk]]) 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. As you know from a message on your talk, another editor has raised the issue at the edit warring noticeboard: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#NFLjunkie22 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )|WP:AN3]]. You will notice that I put a long explanation regarding the edit at [[Talk:Zara Larsson#Misandry]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[Talk:Little_penguin]]: Merge discussion opened August 2023, closed with result of merge April 2024. As of today, the actual merge hasn't happened yet. |
|||
== [[User:George Ho/Competence is not required]] == |
|||
[[Talk:Yellow-eyed penguin]]: Merge discussion opened October 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. |
|||
I had the essay userfied a while back. I trimmed down the page in attempt to have it close to "Wikipedia:" essays without contradicting existing rules. Maybe you can help me expand it. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 22:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Competence <u>is</u> required and there should not be an essay suggesting otherwise. People who fiddle around in ways that do not assist the encyclopedia and who require significant community energy and time to manage are highly disruptive. Well-meaning editors who lack technical skills such are formatting references are fine, so long as they can take advice. People who cannot take advice are more disruptive than vandals because reverting vandalism is easy. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: I can't cite the essay [[WP:NOTPOLICY]] because the essay says not to. I don't want to fight with you over citing CIR essay. To make you feel any better, I added the section "What 'Competence is not required' does not mean". I see the language as the main issue with the essay. I'm trying to improve it, but I couldn't do it alone. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[Talk:New Zealand raven]]: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. |
|||
== Statement by Johnuniq == |
|||
[[Talk:Xenicus]]: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. [[User:Columbianmammoth|Columbianmammoth]] ([[User talk:Columbianmammoth|talk]]) 03:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I agree with every word you wrote to me at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #Statement by Johnuniq]], John. But I don't have a section, and Soham asked me a direct question, so he ought to expect an answer. I have no intention of extracting and collecting my posts from the threaded discussion for uninvolved editors, although I commend your diligence in doing so for your own comments. I'm replying to you here for the obvious reason that I don't have anywhere else. Have you tried finding a post where you've been pinged in that nightmare of an appeal lately? Cheers --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Columbianmammoth}} I'm sure you've seen it, but for completeness, the documentation is at [[WP:MERGE]]. Merging these articles will be tricky because it should be done by someone with a good understanding of the relevant science. In principle, anyone could do a merge but it is highly likely that an amateur would introduce errors or at least misleading statements. It would always be helpful if a merge discussion were formally closed but whether or not that happens, the situation will not be known until a volunteer actually does a merge. If that merge were reverted, it would be necessary to revisit the discussion and try to get more input, for example from relevant wikiprojects. A merge reverted by an editor in good standing would require a formal close to the merge discussion. However, it is impossible to anticipate what might happen until a merge is attempted because many people will decline to get involved in yet another discussion but might have an opinion if an edit to an article occurs. An admin can't be of much help in a situation like this unless there is disruption—for example, if someone reverts but does not engage in a discussion. Problems such as the cases you have listed won't be resolved unless someone who understands the topic applies [[WP:BOLD]]. Feel free to contact me if problems occur. Asking at [[WP:Teahouse]] is also available because that will get more people involved in offering an opinion, although you might not get much actual help unless someone there is familiar with the topic. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. I was thinking of just commenting on your talk because I did not want to post at WP:AE again due to the mess. However, I decided it was worth making my point in an attempt to counter the meme that seems to be developing. I see it was even [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple violations of WP:RULES in an AE discussion|raised at WP:ANI]]! It's amazing how much confusion can be created by so few. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
:: I sometimes think that it's worth "lancing the boil" once in a while, and getting all of the hidden agendas out into the open. Eventually the POV-warriors will run out of things to say about each other. Now there's an idea. Perhaps we could designate a special page where one day per month we suspend CIVIL, NPA, etc. and just let them go hammer-and-tongs at each other. At midnight UTC, the whole page could be rev-deleted ready for the next month. Maybe it could be timed to coincide with the full moon? VPP anyone? --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Great idea and we could use [[User:James J. Lambden/sandbox|the sandbox]] you mentioned which is getting off to good start! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Possibly miscellaneous information== |
|||
==Jane Austen== |
|||
Hi. An anonymous user, very likely dynamic, persisted adding supposedly irrelevant content on [[Microsoft Update Catalog]]. Can you do something about it?[[Special:Contributions/197.2.86.104|197.2.86.104]] ([[User talk:197.2.86.104|talk]]) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== fat fingers actually == |
|||
Hi John, I happened to take a look at my watchlist tonight (first time in a few weeks) and want to thank you for responding to edit requests on Jane Austen. I had an injury a few weeks ago and will be out for a few more weeks. I bought Austen books that arrived yesterday and I have every intention of finishing a full rewrite there. I know it's been slow, but stuff happens. Anyway, thanks again for tending during my absence. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You are too kind [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]]. Handling a couple of edit requests was relaxing as I didn't have to think at all! I hope you will be fully recovered soon, and if physio is involved, do what you're told, no more and no less. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
But thank you for cleaning up after them. I know what other incident you are talking about though. Given that I don't have Discord installed, was there a better what to handle that? Subscribing [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Lead section]] == |
|||
:{{ping|Elinruby}} I was just passing and noticed your heading, then worked out that another admin had blocked the problem and removed their posts from ANI. Rather than a heading, you might have just added a comment to the ANI section asking that the account be blocked immediately. OTOH, it's probably not necessary at a noticeboard like that where it is inevitable that someone will notice and deal with it. I'm sure you know the theory that reporting at [[WP:AIV]] usually gets quick results. Where someone is just posting nonsense as in this case, fast action is not needed. If something was a real problem such as repeated [[WP:BLP]] violations, you might just post at [[WP:AN]]. Passers by will say you should have been at ANI but when something significantlyht bad is happening, AN is the right place in my humble opinion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 07:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Ok so thank you for the venue advice at the end there but just for record I see from the first part you thought the header was a vandalism report. No, what I thought you noticed was that I picked somebody at the recently active admins list and made a post to their talk page. The header was me in a fit of madness hitting publish on a half-written ANI post somewhere in this sequence of events.(I changed the header). Sounds like in your opinion posting to ANI or AN would have been better. In any event, that was a much better and more detailed answer to the question than I was expecting, so thank you for that. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 08:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Born2cycle and SmokeyJoe are discussing the notability of the person and the introduction to the person. If "POV lead" is not an appropriate tag, how else do I show readers the link to the section? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:20, 22 June 2024
I'll reply to messages here, unless requested otherwise. |
Uploading images
Hi, I have uploaded the images during the improvement of an article. However, one thing that I'm skeptical about is whether should I choose as my "own work"? The images that I upload are redrawn from the sources, and I have added the source in the summary.
- File:Chain of triangular bipyramid graph.svg
- File:Graph of triangular bipyramid.svg
- File:Triangular bipyramid (symmetric net).svg
Did I miss something? I'm new at uploading images, and I have no clue how to upload them to Commons even if I have read the WP:MTC. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dedhert.Jr: I don't know about the status of a diagram redrawn from a (presumably) copyright source. Normally, images would be uploaded at Commons and then used as normal here. In case you haven't seen it, WP:IMAGES has links to relevant pages. You would get better advice at WP:HELPDESK or (if uploaded at Commons) c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. To upload at Commons, you would visit, for example, c:User talk:Dedhert.Jr and use the Upload file link there. It appears you redrew the images so they are your own work but I don't know if you are then legally able to donate your drawing to Commons or Wikipedia using one of the standard licenses. As an example, I uploaded File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2014.svg at Commons. If you click that link, then "view on commons" at the top, you will see where I uploaded it along with the copyright tag I used. Following all that is a bit of a puzzle, good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
About "Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War" and it's talk page
Recently this page's protection was raised.
The reason was proposer gave is editwar, disruptive editing, sock puppet and meat puppet.
Editwar: I have not reverted a single line from the article. I found multiple statements which provided source didn't back it up, grossly misinterpreted which other users also have pointed out and statement taken out of context I've recorded each and every each in talkpage.
But I didn't removed any statement just added inline tags.
The other edits I've done, I've added multiple reference for each statement I've added. I've commented extensively for each edit. Even added references about the citation in the edit description.
A disputed and misinterpreted claim
"Mostly Hindu women were victims..." which he initially added without any source and interestingly, he deleted 5 sources all secondary not original which seems to imply Women were raped irrespective of religion.
An user has given well sourced complain about the claim but he didn't participated in the discussion and didn't defended his claim, i think it's been 15 to 20 days when the dispute was logged. Initially I added inline disputed tag but when it was clear he won't be defending it i restored the original claim which was backed by 5 sources which he deleted before the pov push. I also added additional 2 sources from newyorktimes and a paper from academia.org.
While he wasn't defending his edit he reverted my edit saying no consensus! He didn't improved on the material instead reverted my 3 days of work on this article.
I reverted back and added more references, check the logs if I'm lying. He again reverted back a jouranal published in National library of Medicine and a world renowned book as a primary source. It was clear even if i cite nobel prize winning paper(phrasing wrong) i would get reverted. I documented his destructive and Vandalism in details in the talk page of the article before reverting I don't call it edit war. He actively reverting sentences with multiple references it is clear vandalism.
Also He and the user who proposed protection is involved in similar article "Bangladesh Genocide".
I'm the only active user who is contributing in this article constructively ,by increasing
page security and immediately after reverting every contribution i've done is a blalant gaming the system. He've also removed all the inline tags which questions the neutrality of the article.. plz refer to the talk page of the article.
Take everything i said as grain of salt and investigate yourself.
I also propose, restore the inline tags and revert the last revert, even if you don't do please keep both conflicting view if you don't find the disputed claim as misinterpretion
I've worked hard for 4 days continuously on this, reverting each and every contribution like that feels very discouraging. I'm also want your advice how to handle this.
Salekin.sami36 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Salekin.sami36: This refers to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and the fact that I applied indefinite WP:ECP protection as a result of a request at WP:RPPI. I'm sorry but I am in no position to adjudicate regarding the state of the article which is a contentious topic. All you can do is make suggestions at Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War but you would have to pick one specific point at a time and focus on that. Do not mention other editors and do not use terms such as "destructive". Instead, focus on actionable proposals to change article content, with sources, and keep it brief. There is clearly considerable disagreement and a more realistic approach would be to acknowledge that much more experience with editing difficult topics would be needed. I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a reality of Wikipedia that contentious topics are contentious and the tools to deal with the situation are very limited. See WP:DR which would probably lead to an WP:RFC. It appears "Mostly Hindu women were victims" is your immediate concern and an RfC focused on a concrete proposal to change that wording might be all you could achieve. The article protection is very unlikely to be reduced due to the contentious topic issue. Also, you must not post too frequently on article talk and you must keep comments brief. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've used the talk page to document the issues with the article and the editor involved,
- after all my contribution were reverted which i think done through gaming the system to perserve a certain POV (i think). I won't engage with the topic any further at least for now as my vacation is coming to end, also have done everything that could be achieved(i think) in the current setting. I agree that the topic needed more experienced ones with editing difficult topics but all i could see bunch of IPs and sockpuppets name-calling,blaming each other without doing anything constructive.Salekin.sami36 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Horse racing distance template
Your new template has worked brilliantly - someone added a new race to the list today, and they used the template and the distance sort has worked. Thanks again, really appreciate your work on this. Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
YGM
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Scorpions1325 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it was just another crank message. Hard to say if it's trolling or genuinely disturbed, but there's no practical difference here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment on revert on Robert FitzRoy
You asked "does it make sense to prevent a widow from living in destitution?" Why wouldn't it? I understand widows were often made destitute by the deaths of their husbands. Regarding the edit, I made the change because she had been widowed by this point and was no longer his wife. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message but this sort of thing should be discussed at article talk (Talk:Robert FitzRoy) so others can see it, now and in the future. I might have been wrong in how I read it but someone has added a word that looks fine. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Chris Brown ECP
Hi Johnuniq, just a quick reminder to restore indef ECP on Chris Brown since the full protection has expired now. Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:PolParsEstCat
Hi! I was wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level of {{PolParsEstCat}}? It is in use on 212 pages, which per WP:HRT is not enough for automatic semi protection, much less TPE (or even XC). Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: I template-protected {{PolParsEstCat}} as a result of a request now archived at 29 February 2020. At the time I asked why protection was needed with a small number of transclusions and was told it was used for categories and problematic edits would create difficult problems. Two other admins were identified as having handled similar requests. If you think there would be a benefit from your request, please make it at WP:RPPD where I have noticed your activity. You might link to the archived discussion and ping the other admins to see if they have an opinion on the category issue. Why not work out how many more of these you might like to move and keep links in a sandbox for a couple of weeks? Then think about whether there would be a real benefit from lowering the protection and consider the alternative of a move request to get several of the moves done in one request. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to go to WP:RFPD. I will address why I disagree with BHG there, but I will address the "maybe do these at all at once" bit here.My experience with making requests of others (and, I will add, when I am on the other side, e.g. answering edit requests or listings at RMT) is that people usually prefer to have requests broken down into smaller bits, rather than handing off their entire to-do list to someone else. (I also think a mass proposal could have WP:TRAINWRECK issues.)I will note that I have been making use of WP:RMT when I think the protection is justified, and I certainly make my fair share of TPE edit requests. That is to say, I am considering whether the protection is helpful before requesting unprotection. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive IP range...still
I'm not the OP, and this isn't the original notification location, but problems are continuing. Wasn't sure whether to notify there or here. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mapsax: Here is fine. I see there is continued edit warring at Talk:WTIC-FM which would justify a longer block (the previous block for Special:Contributions/2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 was one week). However, superficially at least, the IP's edits seem defensible and certainly are not vandalism. What is needed is for someone familiar with the topics concerned to find problematic changes and patiently try to engage the IP at their most recent IP talk page and/or article talk (ideally, there would be a very polite comment at article talk and a link to it at the IP talk with a polite request to respond there). If the IP failed to engage satisfactorily, it would be a lot easier to justify a long block. I've got too much off-wiki turmoil to dive into the details. Can you try it and let me know what happens? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, since as you know, the most recent talk page changes rapidly, and attempts to address issues go ignored, so, added to the lack of edit summaries, it doesn't look like trying any communication would seem practical. Just keep an eye out periodically if you can, and I'll see if there's anything egregious that happens. Thank you for what you've done already. Mapsax (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
-
- Ameliorate!
- Ancheta Wis
- Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
- Cobi
- Ev
- Moondyne
- Worm That Turned
- An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
- Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
- Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
- Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
- Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
- Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Highly inappropriate warning of a block
Hi. On 08:46, 9 February 2024 , you Johnuniq warned me that you were going to block me, stating, "I will block you if you reinstate obvious nonsense again". I consider this a highly inappropriate warning of a block and it even appears to be misuse of administrative powers. I explained in detail my rationale in my talk page, where there is already a discussion about the situation. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I was away from keyboard and did not have a chance to respond before you were blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- My sense is that it's getting worse. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, yes. Accommodating all comers has benefits but when I speculate about the End of Wikipedia I think it will sink under the weight of unproductive argument. Good editors can't last forever when dealing with nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Time sink editors should simply be banned outright.....block will not help behavior in this case as seen by the inability to understand the problem. Moxy- 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Spanish protests edit
Hello. When I asked that the Spanish protests page be protected, I also noted that the users who were making those edits, one of them changed the title of the page itself without providing any evidence or sources, and I was never able to undo that. They changed the page to Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024), and they did not provide any evidence. Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) - Wikipedia
I ask that you please change the title to "2023 Spanish protests against Catalan amnesty" because the protests the page covers were about Catalan amnesty, whereas the current page just says amnesty with no context, and because the user who changed it did not give any sources or evidence that the protests were still ongoing, and everybody else was in agreement that unless someone showed they were ongoing, the protests ended in 2023. In addition, he also changed the duration to say they were still going on without sources or evidence, so when I undid that, I changed it back to October 29-November 18, a duration of 20 days, since that was the reliable dates we had, but the duration was difficult for me to read, and I accidentally put it to 11 months, 3 weeks and 1 day. If you can put those changes in, it would make the article more reliable, and it would be up to date with the most reliable information. Thank you. (2607:FEA8:7221:F600:6D6D:96B4:58C3:9331 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC))
- Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2023 Spanish protests (original title)
- Moving articles when there is a dispute causes trouble. Another administrator has correctly modified the protection to prevent page moving (renaming). I recommend waiting to see what discussions occur regarding the article content then worry about the title later. See WP:DR for dispute resolution and WP:RM for how to deal with title disagreements. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, again
Well, I made that mistake twice, and you fixed it twice. Thanks. I think the fix I implemented last time was lost by not being saved.🤦 Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I guess this was one of my template fixes, but I've forgotten about it now! No problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Twomad page protection
Why did you decide to extended-protect Twomad when both requests (1, 2) were for semi-protection due to IP vandalism? Doublah (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Doublah: Something confusing happened with Twomad. While working through the protection requests I looked at the article and its history and decided that the request for semi-protection was appropriate. If a page currently has no protection, I see "protect", click that and set the required parameters. If a page is currently protected, I see "change protection" and can click that and change existing parameters. For this article, I saw "protect", clicked it and set semi-protection. After I clicked the last button, I briefly noticed the protection log at the bottom and saw a very recent "extended confirmed access" entry. I then clicked "change protection" to more carefully look at the log and saw that the log appeared to show that I had changed an existing ECP to semi. That should not have happened and I wouldn't do that intentionally without first asking the protecting admin. I thought about making enquiries but I decided that it would be easier to assume ScottishFinnishRadish had a good reason so I changed the semi that I had set back to ECP. See the protection log which shows the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts". Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Before I draftified the article and it reads recreated there were BLP/BDP issues and disruptive editing from autoconfirmed accounts, so I went to to ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection
Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Message added 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
User Nangaf talk page
Stop deleting comments from my talk page. I will revert your edits if you do. Any editing that needs to happen on this talk page I will do myself, if I see the need. There is no need to reply to this request. Nangaf (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nangaf: My options for dealing with long-term abusers are limited—it boils down to blocking everyone involved. A bunch of stuff is going on here at the moment and it looks like I got confused and blocked 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/44 which does not cover 2600:1004:B163:DD20:35E8:AA31:F2C:B2B8 who posted at your talk. I have watched your talk since noticing the shifting IP turn up there during a noticeboard discussion, I think at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Heiner Rindermann. I have to go elsewhere and don't have an opportunity to investigate further. I can see that you are doing everything correctly and are concerned about third-parties interfering at your talk (I saw the history which shows it has happened before). WP:BMB has enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic opposers who favor complete liberty. I'm one of the former and keen advocate of WP:DENY so I am afraid you will hear from me again if the IP continues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
- Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
- Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.
- The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)
- The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ*ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.
Incivility
Would you please look at the discussion on Talk:Grace VanderWaal? It follows some IP vandalism concerning a tik-tok singer named Daniel Larson alleged to be dating VanderWaal. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I removed a comment and will watch. It's minor but has to be prevented. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Sri Lankan Armed Forces
Hi I have pinged you in a discussion on this recently protected page, would appreciate your attention on the talk page. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
AN
Thank you for your comment here. I note further that the off-wiki "campaign" now, apparently, includes on-wiki physical threats against certain editors (see this ANI report I initiated yesterday). I mention it here so that, being an administrator, you would have a fuller understanding of the depths to which this active campaign is willing to sink. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the alert. That is bad and I would have blocked the IP /64 range for a lot longer than 72 hours if I'd seen it, although I can see the argument that there's not much point with a throw-away IP. Feel free to contact me if you notice other bad things. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
Hi Johnuniq :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Fiddling
You do understand that "what is the point of fiddling with this" is not a valid reason to revert. Please provide a reason why you think my edits did not constitute an improvement. 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Up the Walls (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please use the appropriate talk page: Template talk:Protection table. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi, Jon. This editor has been pushing infoboxes at two more articles that I worked on extensively. In reverting him, I inadvertently deleted the lead images, and in one case he accused me of vandalism:
Would you please review the last couple days' edits there? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll watch those two articles for a while but won't act unless more occurs. As you know, the battle continues at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes and I would have no problem telling someone to give it a rest until that RfC is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,--Thinker78 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda! I have to say I haven't done anything in recent months to warrant being rewarded but thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, John. I have been resisting this on the grounds of WP:BLP, as none of the sources have confirmed this marriage directly with the subject, but the photos in this New Zealand article look pretty convincing. Do you think it is time to add it to their article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, what an amazing story. It's strange that such an unusual marriage between US citizens living in the US (I think) has only been noted by The New Zealand Herald. In a few more days, there might be other reports. The photo credit in the nzherald article credits Facebook. I don't know but it's possible that a verified account at Facebook posting about their wedding might be a RS. I would ask for opinions at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Appreciation...
...I have a Android 📱 phone that gets out of hand, keypad got stuck in caps. How do I thank and complement you and other Admins?Four of Sixteen (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend proceeding slowly and waiting for opinions at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Sources into..... Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
HELP NEEDED....
....this has something to do with that glitch that caused me to change Wikipedia IDs. I have some kind of inquiry about this in the bell shaped icon. Four of Sixteen (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's better to write meaningful headings (not "HELP NEEDED....") and you should mention what you are talking about (what glitch? what inquiry?). Information about the bell icon is at Help:Notifications. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- It had a glitch that every time I logged in under a old, now terminated account, I got thrown out and had to use another, my current account to log in. A bug caused this to happen. Now I got some graphics issues going on. Is there a bug on here or is my Android phone acting up? Appreciate the help. The announcement about what happened is not only on my user page, but in my contribs as well. Four of Sixteen (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Module:Age
I'm a user on FANDOM and I'd like to ask you a question. Could you show me what would need to be changed to the Age module so that the year is the last numeral, rather than the first. For example, here it is year, day then month, I'd like for it to be month, day then year. I'd gratefully appreciate it if you could show me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but I need to understand exactly what you mean. Please provide an example of wikitext you would like to enter and what it should produce. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- For example, here you enter {{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean Template:Start date? That does not seem to have anything to do with Module:Age. That template wants year/month/day, for example,
{{start date|1993|02|24}}
is 1993, February, 24. What do you want {{start date}} for? Its documentation says it is only for use inside a template. Frankly it would be a bad idea to require people to enter month/day/year. Module:Age can accept dates in a variety of formats, for example "February 24, 1993" as a single parameter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module:
{{age in days|1993|2|5|2024|4|6}}
→ 11383
- I recommend using the following which is hard to mess up:
{{age in days|Feb 5, 1993|April 6, 2024}}
→ 11,383
- Using
{{age in days|2|5|1993|4|6|2024}}
would be guaranteed to result in confusion. Modifying functiongetDates
to do that would require some tricky changes and I wouldn't want to take the time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)- The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is hard to talk in abstract terms. What do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?
{{example|month1|day1|year1|month2|day2|year2}}
If so, something easy might be possible. However, things would be too difficult if Module:Age is used for any of its other possible templates where a variety of date formats are accepted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is {{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the wanted output from {{MDY|2|5|1993}}? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I plan on using the templates that are typed at the bottom of the Age module. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- What is the wanted output from {{MDY|2|5|1993}}? Is it just the date (February 5, 1993) or is it the date and the age? Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- The module is currently being used for £Birth date and age", under the name "Birth and age". However, the wiki uses another template called "MDY", whose code is {{MDY|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. But I need to know what Module:Age is used for. Is it only used for one template? Does that template always look like the following?
- I'd rather not say, as I'd think to keep my accounts separate, and from people knowing. Anyway, how would you put in such code in Module:Age? The temp. I used as an example was based on the format, rather than anything else. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is hard to talk in abstract terms. What do you do at Fandom? I want to see the wikitext and the expected output, as mentioned above. If you only accept dates written with three numbers m/d/y it would be easiest to put in some code to swap them around. But the only example mentioned so far was for something that does not use Module:Age. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is, at the Fandom wiki I'm on, we do it in the order I messaged you. Could you message me what would need changing, so that I can do it myself? (I've already imported it there, but it needs the changes I desire) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Module:Age is used for a lot of different templates and how easy or advisable something is depends on exactly what is wanted. This example uses the module:
- I know, but I was using it as an example of how it is formatted. What I'd like to know is how to change Module:Age so that I can do month/day/year, rather than year/month/day. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean Template:Start date? That does not seem to have anything to do with Module:Age. That template wants year/month/day, for example,
- For example, here you enter {{start date|(year)|(month)|(day)}}. I'd like it to be {{start date|(month)|(day)|(year)}}. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Here, several templates allow entry of six values (ymd order) or two dates, for example:
{{age in days|1990|07|20|1992|9|20}}
→ 793{{age in days|July 20, 1990|Sep 20, 1992}}
→ 793
A simple adjustment would accept six values in mdy order, for example, {{age in days|07|20|1990|9|20|1992}}
. However, the two dates would no longer work and more adjustments would be needed to make that work as well. I put the simple fix in Module:Age/sandbox. See the following diff.
- Module:Age • Module:Age/sandbox • different (diff)
Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed the module I imported to the wiki, but it won't allow to values to be displayed for other than "Birth date and age". I've added "Extract" and Death date and age" to the wiki, so far. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{extract}} uses Module:Date to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example
{{extract|April 1, 2024}}
or three numbers, for example{{extract|2024|4|1}}
. I won't be changing that. - What does
{{death date and age|2|24|1993|4|12|1921}}
display? - If something does not work, you would need to provide an example of wikitext used as input and the exact output that is displayed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter now. It was because I had the dates the wrong way round, didn't import the "If preview" modules and nor did I import the "Main other" template. Anyway, thanks for all the help you've been to me to achieve what I've needed to do :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{extract}} uses Module:Date to read the date/time. That means a date has to be a single date, for example
Signature Requirements
Hey, I saw you undid my change to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P but I don't understand your logic. At present it now states:
- A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.
- It is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents.
What is the difference between these two statements that make you feel they're both required? Thanks. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ThunderPeel2001: Please discuss issues on the appropriate talk page, WT:Signatures. That provides an easily found history of discussion relevant to the page and gives those watching an opportunity to express an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
That IP LTA range again
Hi Johnuniq,
Remember that R&I LTA range you blocked for trolling and ban evasion back in February? Remember how there was some question about whether the /40 or only the /44 was necessary to prevent further violations? Well, the LTA has returned to the topic area, so I'd suggest that a widening of the block to the /40 would be warranted.
(Note that in this case the revert would ordinarily be justified because of the way the discussion on the relevant content left off at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357#Heiner Rindermann, but it's still a flagrant t-ban violation.)
Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the exceptions to topic bans listed at WP:BANEX is reverting "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Now that the discussion at the BLP noticeboard reached a clear conclusion that this material violates BLP policy and must be removed, restoring it seems to qualify as an example of an obvious violation, and my revert is an exception to topic bans as defined by that policy. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed Joe job. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well who it was. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Johnuniq Oddly enough this one blocked me earlier this afternoon. The strange part is it lasted for one pending edit (which directed me here in the block message) and then seems to have been fixed.
- Awshort (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Johnuniq experienced this again tonight (currently), but I went to whatismyipaddress.com to try to figure out the issue.
- 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40
- Blocked
- 2600:1004:b118:*:*:*:*:*
- Me, on Verizon's cell service.
- The website above shows it as ISP:Verizon Business, so figured I would give an update since it may affect other users as well.
- Awshort (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: A block of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 applies to all IP addresses that start with
2600:1004:B1
. However, it should not affect someone who is logged in. The fact that you posted the above comment indicates you are not affected. Can you say exactly what happened? Were you logged on? What did you do before seeing a message? What was the message? Perhaps record all that if you can next time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: A block of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 applies to all IP addresses that start with
- @Awshort: Sorry about the alarm. I have no idea why it would have affected you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- After a point, people don't care who is right or wrong about issues like this. We just need the disruption to stop even if a few inoffensive good-faith edits are prevented: Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Are you implying you think that was me? I think you know perfectly well who it was. Even if you won't listen to me about my off-wiki communication with this person, it's obviously the same behavior they've exhibited before. 2600:1004:B170:DC6E:104F:2FE7:369B:1C82 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that the IP expects us to believe they just happened to be lurking on Heiner Rindermann's BLP within 90 minutes of when the burner account Tagebücher made its one and only edit to remove the material the IP had been desperately proxying over months earlier. At best, this is more evidence of obsession with a topic area where the community has made it clear they are not welcome. At worst, it's just another ham-handed Joe job. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Moana 2 - please semiprotect
There is a huge amount of IP disruption here. Would you please semiprotect the article? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The Merchant of Venice
Can you or somebody do something about The Merchant of Venice? User:AlexAndrews seems to be waging a campaign to completely rewrite it by continual expansion: 34 changes in 13 days so far. You have already placed a warning on their talk page about procedures and consensus, but they seem to want to interpret WP policies in their own way and it's still happening. As you point out, much of it looks like OR. They seem to be using it as an opportunity to write an interpretative blog, and are not persuaded to cease by other users. Ideally, I would like to see the article rolled back by about 2 weeks, before this user started to inflate it. Masato.harada (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- My note at the talk of AlexAndrews is dated 06:14, 22 April 2024. Since then, only one edit has occurred at The Merchant of Venice and it was to add an innocuous external link. My suggestion would be to start a new section at article talk with a concrete proposal. Do not talk about other editors. Just make a clear and simple proposal to take a particular action such as to add some text or to remove some text or to restore a particular version. Then see what other opinions are presented. There is no need to convince everyone. If a majority support a particular action, and that action does not contravene policy, someone should make the edit without further debate. I will watch and ensure edit warring against consensus does not occur. Editors do not need to respond to everything posted on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment "Edit warring against consensus will not occur." and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had one comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- [1] Again, I'm fighting my sarcastic urges, and again, I hope... Nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure but it would be crystal clear if a new section had one comment from each of two or three people supporting a proposal and any number of comments from one person opposing it. An obvious consensus (one that doesn't require studying lengthy threads) would justify sanctions if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of the long thread is that such a consensus currently exists (on the error-section and the 2 plot sections). It's 3-1 (not overwhelming numbers) and supported by relevant policy. But again, my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. A more accurate statement might have been that it won't happen twice. However, first there has to be a demonstrated and clear consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping an eye on things. I saw your article-talk comment "Edit warring against consensus will not occur." and some sarcastic remarks flooded my brain. But I can honestly say that I hope you are right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was unaware until now that I was being discussed behind my back on this talk page, but I see that another editor from the article's talk page managed to find this discussion.
- For the record, I am not "waging a campaign to completely rewrite" the article; I am adding encyclopedic content to improve the article.
- I struggle to understand why a very small number of editors appear to be threatened by the addition of encyclopedic content to the article, especially when the express axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
AlexAndrews (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
- If you have not disabled notifications, you would have been notified about this discussion in my 23 April 2024 comment. You can probably still see the notification by clicking the bell icon at the top of any page. It is evident that you want to add what you believe to be good encyclopedic content to an article. The problem is that others disagree. There is no practical way for disputes at Wikipedia to be resolved other than through discussion ending in WP:CONSENSUS. At the moment, your proposals do not have consensus. That means you are likely to be blocked if disruption continues. You can get independent opinions and advice at WP:Teahouse. If you do that, please do not try to explain details about the issue—they won't want to know. Questions people there might offer opinions on are (a) who has consensus at Talk:The Merchant of Venice; and (b) what might be done to resolve the disagreement. The standard answer regarding (b) is at WP:DR. I was going to say a bit more but while looking at another page I just noticed that AlexAndrews (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Since I've written all this, I'll post it anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
There is renewed IP vandalism there. Would you kindly semi-protect? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Response to your question at (a now-archived) RFPP
Hi! I haven't been able to get on my computer in a few days and didn't see your reply until now. Here's my rationale for connecting those IPs that I tried to post there:
- Hi, sorry, a bit of a late reply - after blocks of User:Default012Google12100, User:DefaultGoogle54321, and User:DefaultGoogle13100 (all confirmed as TyMega as far as I'm aware), a series of IPs come in to try and remove or insert the same information as those blocked accounts. While obviously I'm not a CU, it looks like nearly every IP editing this has been hopping around the world and comes up as a proxy/web-host/non-residential IP when I check them. The IPs, specifically on this page, tend to target a small subset of pages (some WWE wrestlers, Patrick Stewart, some rappers, Blink 182) that match up with this 2020 SPI for TyMega. Also looks like he's used proxies before.
Sorry for clogging up RFPP! jellyfish ✉ 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- This relates to an archived request for protection. We would expect further socks, but I was hoping you could either say that nothing more was happening at the moment or give a diff or timestamp of a recent edit by a user or IP that was not blocked, then say how it is known that the unblocked user is the sock. No solid proof is needed, just an indication. Some justification would be needed for protection and more would be needed for a block. If you can briefly identify a current problem I will protect. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, yeah, nothing more was happening at the time of reporting (or now). So far they've been easy enough to pick up on and the proxy IPs tend to get blocked quickly, so if you think they're fine without page protection I'm inclined to agree. I'd rather not ward off the occasional good IP editor who edits the articles. jellyfish ✉ 02:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Moana 2 has been getting a lot of edit warring from IPs that are adding unsourced material and deleting sourced material repeatedly against consensus. Please semi-protect if you think appropriate. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Listen, the writing credit doesn't have to wait because David G. Derrick received sole "Written & Directed By" credit while Jason Hand and Dana LeDoux Miller received "Co-Directed By" credits. Was that too much to ask?? 2601:248:5600:6000:D9A:DFC7:2A85:69B3 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Serial vandal
Is it time to block this vandalism-only account? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Deleting material from Talk pages
A user has deleted material from this talk page several times, and it has been hard to persuade him that we are trying to help him become familiar with guidelines. Can you help? See the edit history here: Talk:BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I only looked at the latest. It's an inappropriate removal from a talk page but I would let it pass as unimportant. I'll watch for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi John, a user asked me to import this module on bnwiki. So, I imported here for testing. As this module produce en digit, so i did this edit. On other module, usually this converts en to bn digit but it is not working here (see test page). I am not sure what i am doing wrong. If possible, please take a look. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Vandal returns to CKY article
Would you mind revisiting the CKY (band) article? You recently blocked an IP editor there for edit warring after they continuously deleted sourced information in favor of incorrect info. They’ve returned using the same IP address, as well as a new IP, and are continuing the same pattern. Article protection may be needed, if possible. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @NJZombie: Digging around shows that I blocked 82.35.138.237 (talk · contribs) for a week on 6 May 2024. The IP has a point in that the ref does not mention anything I can see about "original name" or "abbreviation". The infobox claim of "also known as" is also not mentioned. I will semi-protect CKY (band) for a month due to the long-term shifting IP edit warring but the issue needs to be examined on article talk. The solution is to find another reliable source that justifies the current wording or to reword the article to align more closely with what the ref says. The IP's edits are definitely not vandalism—see WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Within the source, the interviewer mentions that the "the real name of the band is Camp Kill Yourself" framed within a question to the drummer, Jess Margera who goes on to explain that they wanted expand the name into making a horror film. NJZombie (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Page merges pending for long time
Hi, I found your name on a list of recently active admin. I want to bring to your attention an issue that has been annoying me for some time, but I don't know how to handle it myself. This relates to the birds of New Zealand.
Talk:Little_penguin: Merge discussion opened August 2023, closed with result of merge April 2024. As of today, the actual merge hasn't happened yet.
Talk:Yellow-eyed penguin: Merge discussion opened October 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened.
Talk:New Zealand raven: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened.
Talk:Xenicus: Merge discussion opened November 2023. I believe that the result is a merge consensus, but the discussion hasn't closed yet and the merge hasn't happened. Columbianmammoth (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Columbianmammoth: I'm sure you've seen it, but for completeness, the documentation is at WP:MERGE. Merging these articles will be tricky because it should be done by someone with a good understanding of the relevant science. In principle, anyone could do a merge but it is highly likely that an amateur would introduce errors or at least misleading statements. It would always be helpful if a merge discussion were formally closed but whether or not that happens, the situation will not be known until a volunteer actually does a merge. If that merge were reverted, it would be necessary to revisit the discussion and try to get more input, for example from relevant wikiprojects. A merge reverted by an editor in good standing would require a formal close to the merge discussion. However, it is impossible to anticipate what might happen until a merge is attempted because many people will decline to get involved in yet another discussion but might have an opinion if an edit to an article occurs. An admin can't be of much help in a situation like this unless there is disruption—for example, if someone reverts but does not engage in a discussion. Problems such as the cases you have listed won't be resolved unless someone who understands the topic applies WP:BOLD. Feel free to contact me if problems occur. Asking at WP:Teahouse is also available because that will get more people involved in offering an opinion, although you might not get much actual help unless someone there is familiar with the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly miscellaneous information
Hi. An anonymous user, very likely dynamic, persisted adding supposedly irrelevant content on Microsoft Update Catalog. Can you do something about it?197.2.86.104 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
fat fingers actually
But thank you for cleaning up after them. I know what other incident you are talking about though. Given that I don't have Discord installed, was there a better what to handle that? Subscribing Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: I was just passing and noticed your heading, then worked out that another admin had blocked the problem and removed their posts from ANI. Rather than a heading, you might have just added a comment to the ANI section asking that the account be blocked immediately. OTOH, it's probably not necessary at a noticeboard like that where it is inevitable that someone will notice and deal with it. I'm sure you know the theory that reporting at WP:AIV usually gets quick results. Where someone is just posting nonsense as in this case, fast action is not needed. If something was a real problem such as repeated WP:BLP violations, you might just post at WP:AN. Passers by will say you should have been at ANI but when something significantlyht bad is happening, AN is the right place in my humble opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok so thank you for the venue advice at the end there but just for record I see from the first part you thought the header was a vandalism report. No, what I thought you noticed was that I picked somebody at the recently active admins list and made a post to their talk page. The header was me in a fit of madness hitting publish on a half-written ANI post somewhere in this sequence of events.(I changed the header). Sounds like in your opinion posting to ANI or AN would have been better. In any event, that was a much better and more detailed answer to the question than I was expecting, so thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)