→You know how this works.: am now watching Mark Dice |
|||
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 |
|||
*[[/Archive 21|Archive 21 (July 2016 – January 2017)]] |
|||
"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> |
|||
== Your response at AN/I == |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
John, I asked that editors not put their responses inside my response there. Can you please refactor? And your statement "I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off ..." is much like Softlavender's; essentially just "you must be guilty are people wouldn't be whining at AN/I". This is a not a fair response. Please look at the actual issue and see if you see anything actually deserving of any kind of sanction. Your comparison to those who do thousands of changes using automated tools is also unfair; all my work is by hand, one article at a time, with careful consideration. And very few of my edits have received any notice or complaint, so to assume that a few complaints now taints the whole lot is also grossly unfair. Please do look for yourself if you're going to be piling on. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I saw your request but I do not see why should you get top billing while responses are hidden. If your work is as wonderful as you suggest, why is there so much opposition? Are they all ratbags who must be swept aside? |
|||
:Bear in mind that I am currently involved in a similar although much smaller-scale issue where (as I see it) the critical point is that an ultimately trivial disagreement involves imposing distress on good editors. This is a collaborative website with flaws, not a letter-perfect top-down ''do it my way'' business. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::No claims of wonderfulness are in play here. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I support collaboration and am not piling on due to recognizing some names. The issue is ultimately trivial and my point is that since helpful editors are objecting, the details of the case are not relevant because people should not be causing distress in the community over trivia. If something useful were being done, sure go for it. However, that is not the case. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, you don't think styling is useful; that's fine. But what editors are being caused any distress here that is not of their own making? Besides Mjroots who is disappointed that he can't just always capitalize Line, and new editor Railfan23 who thinks hyphens are for Americans, has anyone actually complained about my moves? Why did the others wait until an AN/I complaint to pile on? I keep asking for examples of what I have done that should have been considered controversial, but nobody will answer. This is nutty. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Styling is useful. I write programs and often have to drastically refactor code before I can even read it because the lack of style jars my brain and prevents me from seeing the algorithm. I'm not even claiming you are wrong. However, in a collaborative community, people have to moderate their desires for total uniformity and accept the fact that people are different and good editors are hard to find—don't drive them off unless it involves an issue much more significant than dashes and letter case. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Has someone suggested that my styling has bothered editors enough that some would consider leaving over it? I don't think so. I work in an environment with pretty strict code style, and a general assumption that accepting the consensus style is a prerequisite to effective collaboration; I do try to keep in mind that it's not that way everywhere. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I have not seen a suggestion that the current fuss is causing anyone to retire, but drama drama drama wears people down and early retirement is the inevitable result. A company pays a programmer to perform certain duties, one of which is to conform with house style. Wikipedia is quite different. Contributors are self-motivated and unpaid, and there is no must-follow house style, regardless of what MOS enthusiasts would like. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I agree that on WP nobody should be asked to deal with style issues if they don't want to. And yes, less drama the better. Cheers. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 07:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
== A silly Lua question == |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Diff/1201048570#Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024|Wugapodes]] |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Interface administrator changes''' |
|||
Probably a stupid question, but can we round using Lua? The extension page for Lua says you can import #expr but doesn't really give any examples, so I thought I'd check. One of these days I'll stop pretending that I can just one-to-one convert my Java knowledge into Scrib and actually read through everything... [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
:@[[User:Primefac|Primefac]]: It's roll-your-own in Lua although using [[Module:Math]] would probably be best. In general, trying to call wikitext like #expr is too much overhead for a module, although it can be done. I don't recommend trying to read [[Module:Convert]] because I was never sure the thing would fit into Scribunto so there is very little attention to modularity or code reuse. However, it deals with rounding and I found I had to add some kludges to make human-expected rounding work in some corner cases. By contrast, #expr gave a better result, and I included the comment "Investigate how PHP round() works". However, I only noticed the tiny irritations because I looked at thousands of converts—it's very unlikely they would be a problem. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 22:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1200495852#Inactive interface administrators 2024-01-28|Enterprisey]] |
|||
|[[Special:PermanentLink/1193040631#Remove INTADMIN from Izno|Izno]] |
|||
}} |
|||
</div> |
|||
== Plus sign in convert outputs == |
|||
</div> |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
I saw your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3200_Phaethon&diff=760650273&oldid=758187111 here], and I just don't understand. There's no visual difference in the output (before and after), so why and when should the plus sign be used? <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 07:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* An [[Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators#RFC: Increase inactivity requirement|RfC]] about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback. |
|||
:@[[User:Huntster|Huntster]]: Sorry, but this is going to be a bit long. From the point of view of the article, there is no difference between the following: |
|||
:*<code><nowiki>{{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi AU|abbr=unit}}</nowiki></code> → {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi AU|abbr=unit}} |
|||
:*<code><nowiki>{{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi+AU|abbr=unit}}</nowiki></code> → {{convert|4.2|e9km|e9mi+AU|abbr=unit}} |
|||
:The output in the two cases is identical. However, while maintaining convert, I need to periodically remove unnecessary items from "what links here" for [[Module:Convert/extra]] in the article namespace so I can determine which "extra" units are being used, and where. |
|||
:In the above, when convert tries to interpret <code>e9mi AU</code>, it sees that there is no unit with that code, then it notices the <code>e9</code> and tries to construct an engineering notation unit based on applying <code>e9</code> to the remainder, namely <code>mi AU</code>. However, there is no <code>mi AU</code> unit, and it has to check [[Module:Convert/extra]] to determine that. That puts the article in "what links here" for the ''extra'' module. |
|||
:After the above, convert tries splitting <code>e9mi AU</code> at the space and eventually makes an engineering notation unit for <code>e9mi</code> and a normal unit for <code>AU</code>. |
|||
:The effect of using <code>+</code> is that convert proceeds in a different order. No unit codes contain a plus sign, so convert does not check whether e9 applies to <code>mi+AU</code>. Instead, convert immediately splits it into <code>e9mi</code> and <code>AU</code> and finds the wanted units with less overhead and without trying to look in [[Module:Convert/extra]]. |
|||
:I have a note somewhere to investigate whether convert could be more intelligent so the above is not needed, but at the moment I just periodically clean up. That's rarely needed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So for engineering notations, pop a plus sign between units, gotcha. Would it be worth it to make a note of that in the /doc? <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 14:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
== Faulty information == |
|||
* 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''' |
|||
On the page regardingMadeline McCann, the3-year-old abducted from Portugal, her description states that she has a right green eye with a brown spot on the retina. It is actually on the iris. It is almost impossible to see the retina without a specialized scope, making it a poor identifier. |
|||
* 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. |
|||
Thank you[[Special:Contributions/97.123.200.93|97.123.200.93]] ([[User talk:97.123.200.93|talk]]) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (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]]. |
|||
:I guess you contacted me because I have the most recent edit at [[Disappearance of Madeleine McCann]]. I will post something on the article talk page later as the issue is not simple and I will need to look in the talk archives. Happy editing! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I posted at [[Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Brown spot in retina or iris?]] saying that the text in the infobox is a quote from a reliable source and so would be difficult to change. Please comment at the article talk if wanting to discuss it further. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
== User:Hawstom login == |
|||
* 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. |
|||
Thanks for looking at this for me, and apologies for the delays and sporadic replies from me. Today I hope to be looking at your replies from my laptop. But I wanted to touch bases from my Android browser that's still logged in. I may be following up here from the laptop. You can always contact me using the web form at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php I think I have identified that as my business web site on my user page for over a decade. More later. [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] ([[User talk:Hawstom|talk]]) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* 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!''']] |
|||
---- |
|||
=== References by [[User:Hawstom]] to personal and business web sites === |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
[[User:Johnuniq]] said, "Can you find a diff showing User:Hawstom adding those links?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnuniq/Archive_21#User:Hawstom_login]. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
* 13 Nov 2005 change from home.sprintmail.com to hawsedc.com (showing sprintmail.com is defunct; I think my Wikipedia account email may still be hawstom@sprintmail.com) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=28394359&oldid=28394244] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
* 6 Jan 2004 addition of "my business site" hawsedc.com [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=2093995&oldid=2093986] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
* 26 Apr 2004 addition of "my business site" constructionnotesmanager.com [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=3476711&oldid=3349348] |
|||
}}}} |
|||
-[[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] ([[User talk:Hawstom|talk]]) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- |
|||
-->{{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== |
|||
=== Issue summary === |
|||
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 cannot access my account except on my Android phone. I have been only sporadically and minimally active for over 10 years, but I am logged in on my Android phone that I bought in December 2015. I am guessing that possibly my account was compromised, since I very probably should be able to recall the correct password. I would like to get access to my account and set up two-step authentication. I am proposing that you contact me via the web contact forms at the sites I identified as mine on 13 Nov 2005 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=28394359&oldid=28394244], 6 Jan 2004 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=2093995&oldid=2093986], and |
|||
: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) |
|||
26 Apr 2004 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hawstom&diff=3476711&oldid=3349348]. The forms are at http://hawsedc.com/contact.php and http://constructionnotesmanager.com/contact.htm Thanks again for your time. Obviously no rush. [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] ([[User talk:Hawstom|talk]]) 18:02, 28 January 2017 (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 == |
|||
:@[[User:Hawstom|Hawstom]]: This is taking a long time and if I ever understood the issue I have totally forgotten about it now. I'll repeat that as an editor I cannot do anything. My intention was to help gather information and present it in a digestible form so that WMF insiders might take action. I will examine the links you just posted later but meantime have you tried emailing anyone while logged on as Hawstom? You might use "Email this user" in the sidebar to send an email to me and we can see if it works, and what your email address appears to be. I won't reveal any personal information on wiki, but you might like to include what you think the email address is. I suggest doing that soon because the cached information on your phone that is keeping you logged on may expire.<p>Re contacts, I believe your suggestion is that someone would use the contact forms you mentioned to send a secret message and you could repeat that message on wiki to show you control the contact websites. It would not be very useful for me to do that because my opinion does not count. However, that offer can be included in a summary of the situation to be presented to someone who can fix your logon problems—if they do contacting they would be much more convinced than if I were to say I had done it. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmm, actually I don't know how easy it is easy to see "email this user" on a mobile. The link to email me from a logged-on account is [[Special:EmailUser/Johnuniq]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (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 |
|||
=== Hawstom 1 March 2017 === |
|||
@[[User:Hawstom|Hawstom]]: |
|||
*Convenience user links: {{user|Hawstom}} |
|||
*I received your email that you sent just now. |
|||
*I do not want to reply because I think you indicated earlier that you no longer have access to some of your old email accounts. Further, the whole point of you emailing me was because (I think) you are not sure what email address you entered in [[Special:Preferences]], so you possibly would not see a reply. |
|||
*Do you want me to post the sender's email address here (I would obfuscate it as an anti-spam measure)? The address is not gmail or sprintmail. It may be a work or former work address. |
|||
*Bear in mind that if you contact someone to assist regain control of your account, they will ''not'' want long delays before responses occur. |
|||
[[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 03:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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)) |
|||
:I beg your pardon and I appreciate your patience and dedication. Working with this via my phone has not been pleasant. I am willing to stick with this in a focused way if there is a path to a solution. You are welcome to post the thaws@kwhpe.com or tomh@hubbardengineering.com addresses, as they are long defunct, but I do not think that it would be helpful. Do you have a clear idea for a solution? It's clear to me that my addition of hawsedc.com provides a path to restoration via the hawsedc.com Contact page. But I am at the mercy of the community. Please just point me in the right direction as you have done so well to this point. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.167.218.19|70.167.218.19]] ([[User talk:70.167.218.19#top|talk]]) 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] ([[User talk:Hawstom|talk]]) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{la|Spanish protests against the amnesty (2023-2024)}} |
|||
:*{{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 == |
|||
:Maybe it would be best to continue this on my talk page unless you have a better suggestion. [[User:Hawstom|Tom Haws]] ([[User talk:Hawstom|talk]]) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
::See [[User talk:Doug Weller#User:Hawstom]]. I suggest waiting for a response, although that might take quite some time because the people at Arbcom are very busy. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:39, 14 March 2017 (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 == |
||
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) |
|||
Can you explain <span class=plainlinks>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_pages&diff=prev&oldid=762860310 this revision]</span> of yours? |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::Thanks, I am sure you did the right thing. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Trump Tower wiretapping allegations needs protection == |
|||
Is there any valid reason to undo that minor change?<br><font face="Papyrus"><font color="#0020C2">―</font><b>[[User:PapiDimmi|<font color="#0000A0">PapíDimmi</font>]]</b> <small><font color="#571B7E">(</font><b>[[User talk:PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">contribs</font>]]</b><font color="#571B7E">)</font></small></font> 03:16, 31 January 2017 (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) |
|||
:lurker comment: I would have undone it if I had seen it first. It changes the tone of the sentence away from how it was intended. Why did you think it was a good thing to do? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: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== |
|||
::Using an em dash rather than a semicolon when a semicolon can be used is unnecessary. It is easier to read a sentence which uses a semicolon than a sentence which uses an em dash. |
|||
{{talkback|Template talk:Convert|Bogus unit "kiloare"|ts=12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
[[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== User Nangaf talk page == |
|||
::No, it does not change the tone of the sentence. Semicolons are a punctuation mark for a reson, you know.<br><font face="Papyrus"><font color="#0020C2">―</font><b>[[User:PapiDimmi|<font color="#0000A0">PapíDimmi</font>]]</b> <small><font color="#571B7E">(</font><b>[[User talk:PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">contribs</font>]]</b><font color="#571B7E">)</font></small></font> 04:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Edit warring at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] is not a good look and your edits were correctly reverted. There were a total of five reverts and no discussion on talk. I see you are complaining at [[User talk:EEng]] and [[User talk:Ss112]]. And more edit warring at [[Wikipedia:Red link]]. And now ''I'' have to justify my revert at [[Wikipedia:User pages]]? The way Wikipedia works is that someone with a proposal to change long-standing text needs to explain on the appropriate talk page (''not'' my talk!) why their proposal is desirable. Editing is great fun but learning is even better. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
::::Creating a talk page section for a minor, simple thing like changing a punctuation marks? Insanity.<br><font face="Papyrus"><font color="#0020C2">―</font><b>[[User:PapiDimmi|<font color="#0000A0">PapíDimmi</font>]]</b> <small><font color="#571B7E">(</font><b>[[User talk:PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">contribs</font>]]</b><font color="#571B7E">)</font></small></font> 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
== Administrators' newsletter – March 2024 == |
|||
::Actually, I did revert it, after you put it back. If you continue to make random changes to WP-space pages, I will be asking admins to block you. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (February 2024). |
|||
:::Sure thing, mister.<br><font face="Papyrus"><font color="#0020C2">―</font><b>[[User:PapiDimmi|<font color="#0000A0">PapíDimmi</font>]]</b> <small><font color="#571B7E">(</font><b>[[User talk:PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/PapiDimmi|<font color="#4AA02C">contribs</font>]]</b><font color="#571B7E">)</font></small></font> 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{Col-begin}} |
|||
== RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at [[WT:COI]] == |
|||
{{Col-2}} |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes''' |
|||
I've relisted an RfC that was run at [[WT:Admin]] in Sept. 2015. It is at [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3]] as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 04:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline |
|||
:OK thanks, I'll look at it although I have found the frequent postings in that area more than I want to handle. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb|Sdkb]] |
|||
|[[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}} |
|||
== [[Atheophobia]] == |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Wikipedia bureaucrat.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Bureaucrat changes''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 23#Atheophobia → Discrimination against atheists|discussion at RFD]] resulted in deletion of [[Atheophobia]]. However, reading [[Talk:Discrimination against atheists]], the target article was inadvertently renamed to "Atheophobia" but then reverted back to the previous title per RM. Does the [[WP:CSD#G4]] apply to this? If not, I thought about taking it to RFD. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[m:Special:Permalink/26246943#SilkTork@enwiki|SilkTork]] |
|||
:I had forgotten about that but the history of {{no redirect|Atheophobia}} shows I reverted a move in December 2011. |
|||
:For reference, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Atheophobia log] shows these deletes: |
|||
:*24 January 2009 JLaTondre (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) |
|||
:*31 December 2008 JLaTondre (Deleted per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 23) |
|||
:*25 March 2006 Doc glasgow (recreation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia) |
|||
:*10 March 2006 Mailer diablo (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheophobia) |
|||
:*4 March 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (dicdef/neologism) |
|||
:However, before considering whether the Atheophobia redirect might be deleted again, it would be necessary to remove "atheophobia" from the article. I don't know what the situation was like a few years ago, but a search now suggests that the term has become sufficiently widely used for any attempt to delete to redirect to fail. I wouldn't bother trying. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[:wikt:Atheophobia]] now exists as part of external links. I'll find sources soon. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 03:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: Found [https://www.amazon.com/Changing-World-Religion-Map-Identities/dp/9401793751/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me= one source] possibly connecting discrimination and "atheophobia". However, [https://www.google.com/search?q=atheophobia+discrimination+-wikipedia&newwindow=1&biw=1664&bih=920&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1ypmGkIzSAhXsB8AKHQBbC9MQ_AUIDSgG&dpr=1 sources] connecting both may be limited. Alternatively, I thought about adding either "citation needed" or using the source. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{Col-end}} |
|||
==Autopatrolled== |
|||
Surprised you didn't have the autopatrolled user right, so I've granted it. This means any pages you create will be automatically marked as patrolled. You've been around long enough that I think you can be trusted. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]]: Thanks, and very interesting because I received an email to notify me of the user rights change, per the defaults at [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
== Talkback: [[User talk:SpikeToronto#overflow:auto|SpikeToronto]] == |
|||
* [[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]]. |
|||
* 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. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
{{talkback|User talk:SpikeToronto|overflow:auto|ts=16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)}} — <span style="font: bold 125% Garamond;">[[User:SpikeToronto|<span style="color:#DC143C">Spike</span>]][[User talk:SpikeToronto|<span style="color:#000000">Toronto</span>]]</span> 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. ({{phab|T353388}}) |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
== February 2017 == |
|||
* 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]]. |
|||
---- |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] In a recent edit to the page [[:Narendra Modi]], you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English|respect national varieties of English]] in Wikipedia articles. |
|||
{{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]]) 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 == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== 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. [[User:Oz346|Oz346]] ([[User talk:Oz346|talk]]) 19:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== AN == |
|||
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 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 == |
|||
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) |
|||
== 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]] |
|||
}} |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
* 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]]. |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
* 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 == |
|||
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''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1218761294#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed|Nihonjoe]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes''' |
|||
:[[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''' |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:PermanentLink/1219467786#Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024|GeneralNotability]] |
|||
</div> |
|||
</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''' |
|||
* 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]] |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
* 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''' |
|||
* This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA. |
|||
* 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!]]''' |
|||
---- |
|||
{{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 == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:''[[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}}]'' |
|||
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 [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|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 [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|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,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- 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 --> |
|||
== 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''' ('''[[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]] |
|||
* '''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]] |
|||
* '''Proposal 13''' (in trial): [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections|Admin elections]] |
|||
* '''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 == |
|||
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]] ([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]]. |
|||
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) |
|||
: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> |
|||
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use [[British English]]. For something related to the United States in the same way, use [[American English]]. For something related to India, use [[Indian English]]. For something related to another [[List of territorial entities where English is an official language|English-speaking country]], such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the ''original'' author of the article used. |
|||
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> |
|||
[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]] |
|||
[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversight changes''' |
|||
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on [[User talk:AusLondonder|my talk page]] or visit the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-lang --> [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[Special:Permalink/1221703338#Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024|Dreamy Jazz]] |
|||
:When I edited the article to fix some broken wording, it had 11 instances of "program", including one in the section I edited, so changing a single "programme" for consistency was not a great wikicrime. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
== Aslan - NIAC == |
|||
</div> |
|||
Kindly explain why a reference to Reza Aslan being on the advisory board of NIAC is deemed as an attack |
|||
[[User:Azarbarzin|Azarbarzin]] ([[User talk:Azarbarzin|talk]]) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Spreading a dispute over multiple pages is not a good idea. Please stick to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Azarbarzin and BLP|ANI report]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 06:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: In the like manner accusing others of using [[WP:SPA]] is equally not a good idea. cheers [[User:Azarbarzin|Azarbarzin]] ([[User talk:Azarbarzin|talk]]) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==Huma Abedein== |
|||
[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news''' |
|||
People like you why people like myself hardly contribute anymore, you don't hardly look at substance you claim my talk comment was "generic" which I highly and utterly disagree, again thank you for running off contributors such as myself because I refuse to edit war. I am going to dissect every edit you have ever done and if I detect even a inkling of neutrality lacking it is getting tagged with a lengthy dissertation as too why. Huma abedein has been locked because of vandalism gee but my POV check tag has no merit according to you COMPLETELY DISAGREE, thank you for ruining wikipedia and running off contributors a massive problem by the way and even Jimbo has public talked of such. --[[User:0pen$0urce|0pen$0urce]] ([[User talk:0pen$0urce|talk]]) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* [[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]]. |
|||
:Your previous comment on my talk is [[User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 21#Huma Abedin|archived here]], and your explanation for adding a POV tag is at the [[Talk:Huma Abedin/Archive 2#Undue weight and lack of NPOV on congressional Inquiries Sections|talk archive]]. The explanation does not identify a problem in the article apart a claim that a section "seems rather large". Your tag was removed by me on [[Special:Diff/723489296|3 June 2016]] and another editor on [[Special:Diff/732034852|29 July 2016]]. If people could just add a tag that stayed until the person adding it was satisfied, the vast majority of articles related to politics or anything controversial would be covered in tags—some claiming the article was too biased against the subject, and some saying the article is too kind. Editing at Wikipedia is easy to do—it's getting along with other editors and engaging with their comments that is the hard part. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news''' |
|||
==Talk:Grace VanderWaal == |
|||
* 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]] |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> |
|||
Please be particularly aware that [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration''' |
|||
Whatever problems you have with my comment that are so critical that you feel the only choice is to delete them all together needs some discussion instead. Feel free to contact me, or we can discuss it here. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* The arbitration case ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics|Venezuelan politics]]'' has been closed. |
|||
:We assume good faith and so realize that Ronz has no idea how destructive it is to mount months-long battles over unimportant issues. It's not a problem to post belligerent do-it-my-way templates on my talk because I have a reasonable understanding of human nature, but it is a concern that one quarter of the comments at [[Talk:Grace VanderWaal]] have been from Ronz, with virtually all of them sniping about one or two external links in an article under active development. Such hyper-activity shows an inability to judge what is important for the encyclopedia. Is it worth fighting that hard over the potential sin of an excess external link, regardless of how much it pisses off the editors who are developing the article? They are known-good editors who develop core encyclopedic content. Ronz and I could disappear tomorrow and no one would care. By contrast, the people who develop content should be supported, not harangued. |
|||
* 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]]. |
|||
:After the single external link in question was merged into the article, Ronz posted ([[Special:Diff/765819002|diff]]) yet again on article talk—a post that did nothing other than to pick open the scabs. Two weeks after that, Ronz posted again ([[Special:Diff/767905222|diff]]) with a misleading section heading claiming "No consensus to include VEVO link" (it was actually no consensus to include <u>or remove</u>—that is, the months-long arguments had been a complete waste of time). Then Ronz battled to keep their precious personal and irrelevant opinion prominently displayed on article talk. Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles, Ronz thought it would be useful to drop fake warnings here. |
|||
:The underlying issue concerns Ronz's opinions about one or two external links. As well as the 90 posts at article talk since 29 October 2016, with more at [[Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal|WP:ELN]], Ronz has previously pursued the matter on this page: [[User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 21#Talk:Grace VanderWaal|9 November 2016]] and [[User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 21#Engaging|4 January 2017]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tps}} {{tq|Having finally driven off the opposition and won all the battles}} is the one sentiment above with which I vehemently disagree. The "opposition" stood and fought the tyranny, ''and the encyclopedia won''. —[[User:ATS|<span style="font-family:chalkboard;font-size:130%;color:#148;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px">ATS</span>]] 🖖 [[User talk:ATS|<span style="font-family:chalkboard;color:#373">talk</span>]] 02:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous''' |
|||
===For the record=== |
|||
* 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!]]''' |
|||
... at least two editors believe the inclusion of a "summary"—as opposed to a direct, unadorned Wikilink—is [[WP:SOAP|soapboxing]] and/or [[WP:The_Rules_of_Polite_Discourse|grandstanding]], and in violation of [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:TALK]], two long-standing, universally accepted behavioral guidelines. In view of these guidelines, removal of said "summary" is not edit-warring; each replacement, however, is a fresh violation of POINT and TALK. —[[User:ATS|<span style="font-family:chalkboard;font-size:130%;color:#148;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px">ATS</span>]] 🖖 [[User talk:ATS|<span style="font-family:chalkboard;color:#373">talk</span>]] 22:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) {{tps}} |
|||
---- |
|||
===An attempt at summarizing your concerns=== |
|||
{{center|{{flatlist| |
|||
Johnuniq: Is it unfair to summarize your basic concerns as: |
|||
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]] |
|||
*I'm working too hard on something that you think is unimportant? |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]] |
|||
*There is a class of Wikipedia editors that need protection from other Wikipedians? --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]] |
|||
:Ha ha! Do I look so silly that I might think it would be productive to continue a debate with someone willing to devote the time and energy outlined above over an external link? You have made 90 edits to [[Talk:Grace VanderWaal]] since 29 October 2016—125 days spent arguing essentially over an external link! Then there are 900 words [[Special:PermanentLink/760208181#External links - Jan 2017 dispute|of notes]], with more at [[Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal|WP:ELN]]. You noted yourself that WP:ELN closed as ''no consensus to add or remove''—was that empty result really worthwhile? If I thought there were some hope of a productive discussion I wouldn't mind, but I know that some things are beyond my reach. However, I will post a response to the mistaken summary above, and you are welcome to have the last word, and another last word if I respond, although I have no intention of entering into a contest to determine who has the greater perseverance because the answer to that is known. |
|||
}}}} |
|||
:The above summary is based on a faulty model that assumes there is one correct outcome for every dispute, with no consideration for the overall benefit to the encyclopedia. Further, the model incorrectly assumes that the best outcome must occur ''now'' rather than after allowing time for emotions to cool. |
|||
<!-- |
|||
:It ''is'' worth battling an editor who adds incorrect or POV text to an article, but in a new article being actively developed it is absurd to argue for 125 days about a couple of external links. Understanding that requires awareness of human nature. The issue has similarities to old arguments over whether schools should use corporal punishment to correct undesirable behavior—beating someone would be great ''if'' it did anything useful, but it almost never does. For the case of [[Grace VanderWaal]], a helpful approach would be to make a few suggestions, then put it on a to-do list for consideration a few months later. |
|||
-->{{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>}} |
|||
:My essential concern is that you are damaging the encyclopedia with no commensurate benefit. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- 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 --> |
|||
::For the record, another discussion on this page ([[#Your response at AN/I]]) concerns a similar situation where a normally productive editor is irritating many others with months-long bickering over trivia. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hope we can agree to disagree. Otherwise, I think we need a moderated discussion of some sort to make any progress. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Deleting material from Talk pages == |
|||
== New range contributions tool == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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]] == |
|||
I know you've expressed interest in this. We're currently discussing where it should live, given the advanced features it will offer. Please feel free to chime in at [[phab:T159568]]. Thanks! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></span></span> 19:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your work—that will be very valuable when deployed. I examined the discussion and cannot currently think of anything missing. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== ANI == |
|||
:That was too easy! [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Vandal returns to CKY article == |
|||
You're doing everything perfectly and the people objecting to your style are totally wrong. We get it, in fact we've seen it before. However, please add me to the list of those who believe your policy of flouting talk-page norms by copy-pasting comments between pages is confusing and pointy. Many years ago, some editors replied on the poster's talk, but pasting junk was not fashionable even then. In recent years, the silliness of those old habits has been understood by pretty well everyone. By the way, posting walls-of-text laden with links has also gone out of fashion—most people know to press PageDown whenever they see stuff like that because experience shows that trying to find whatever point is being made in such a blancmange is a waste of time. If you have a response to a comment, just make the response and leave the blue links for beginners. When someone suggests that a particular IP is a disruptive editor, probably a sock, who is being fed by attention, they are making a substantive claim. The only reasonable response would be to investigate the claim and back off if it seems plausible (say nothing), or refute the claim with evidence. Arguing is apparently important for some people, but my suggestion would be to have the last word and then drop this particular debate. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:I read your first sentence a couple of times, as I kept getting interrupted by children. I was surprised anyone was going to say that, and when I got back to the comment, I realised that wasn't what you were saying. |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
::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 == |
|||
:I got my habit many years ago, as that's what others were doing then. But I thought it was more helpful to post the previous part of the discussion, so the context was there. It was always my hope that people would then copy the response and answer back to my page. But as I commented to Bishonen, I think it's getting stale. I'll probably change it soon to how everyone else seems to be working these days. Thanks for the tip about links - I got in that habit a decade or so ago, and haven't really thought about it since. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
:In that case [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#IP_user_blanking_talk_page]] I felt I was there as involved, given my comments on his talk page and our unfortunate interaction at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination)]]. I erred in that discussion. I shouldn't have reverted the unblanking of his talk page without discussing. Though I still feel that the user had every right to blank his talk page, and to some extent, unblanking it was taunting him. I think that people over-reacted about the alleged obscene joke. It was a pretty mild joke/jab about pudding in my mind. Sadly the user repeated it later, and is now subjected to a 3-month ban with no talk page privileges - which seems a bit harsh in my mind. The IP seemed to be doing some good editing until he got dragged, unnecessarily, in my mind to ANI. Instead of taking his concerns seriously, I'm concerned there was some prejudice because he was an IP, and because of his past editing block for warring. But I agree, went about it the wrong way. |
|||
[[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. |
|||
:Personally I hate arguing - although a lot of what some see as aruing, I see as discussion. Though the ANI case had turned into arguing. Thanks for the comment - it helps to understand how others are thinking. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::My comment above is copied from [[User talk:Bishonen#"The section above"]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/768834107|permalink]]). I believe you are correct to withdraw from that page and, with luck, from other associated threads. In the end, who was right and who was wrong does not matter. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Except perhaps for the person who was blocked, perhaps unjustly, for 3 months for an edgy joke about pudding. [[User:Nfitz|Nfitz]] ([[User talk:Nfitz|talk]]) 03:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[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. |
|||
==[[Template:Nazism sidebar]]== |
|||
[[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. |
|||
Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Nazism_sidebar#RfC:_Swastika_size_in_infobox_.282.2C_take_2.29 this one] [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:OK, thank I'll be there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[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) |
|||
== No offense intended == |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
==Possibly miscellaneous information== |
|||
With my change of <nowiki><br></nowiki> to <nowiki><br/></nowiki>. I thought it was deprecated because it causes anomalous display on syntax highlighter, but I see it is still good in html5. No response required. Cheers, • • • [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 13:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:@[[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]]: No problem at all—I am not offended. I was very pleased to see Tim's definitive post at WP:VPT ([[Special:Diff/765950081|diff]]) regarding <br> and welcome any opportunity to mention it. I regularly adjust markup in comments when I'm posting so that's not an issue to me. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:Done. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
== fat fingers actually == |
|||
=="Generally new editors know they are new and ask for assistance rather than tell others how things should be"== |
|||
Ha! Haha! Maybe I'm getting jaded, but it looks to me like newbies who want to edit controversial subjects ''generally'' come here to orate about how the place should be run. "Newbies" always do, of course, but many genuinely new editors also. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC). |
|||
:Perhaps my sentence is missing a "should". We know the internet is full of opininiated blowhards but it is still suprising to me that many newbies imagine Wikipedia needs their special insight—an insight which, they assume, has never been previously discussed. Glad you're relaxing by reading ANI! <small>This is from [[Special:PermanentLink/771166285#request for block of user @Jytdog: to prevent him from removing valid edits|ANI permalink]].</small> [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 23:36, 19 March 2017 (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) |
|||
== Module for converting currency == |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
Could you tell me how to make a module for coverting money currencies for id.wikipedia? --[[User:RusdianaDablang|RusdianaDablang]] ([[User talk:RusdianaDablang|talk]]) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Just curious, how did you pick this page to ask? I'm happy to think about modules but if you need wider input, please try [[WT:Lua]]. |
|||
:Are you aware of {{tl|currency}} which can format a currency amount (using [[Module:Currency]])? |
|||
:I don't know how ''converting'' currencies would be possible because they fluctuate every day, and there is no practical way to tell a module how to convert one currency to another. |
|||
:Please spell out an example of what you mean and briefly give an example of where it would be used. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (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) |
|||
== You know how this works. == |
|||
Don't play games, because this is all on the logs. Again, asking for arbitration. DONE TONIGHT. [[User:Jessemonroy650|meatclerk]] ([[User talk:Jessemonroy650|talk]]) 04:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Jessemonroy650|Jessemonroy650]]: Please have a look at [[WP:TP]] to find out how to add a comment. In brief, click "new section" at the top of the page. I reverted your previous comment here because there is a misunderstanding—presumably you think my comment about a sock [[User talk:Ian.thomson|here]] was related to you, but my comment was about a completely different user and a completely different case. Now that I have been thoroughly alerted, I am watching [[Mark Dice]] and may contribute. |
|||
:Regarding your message, Wikipedia does not work by "arbitration"—there is an [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]], but they will not get involved in a minor disagreement like the current issue. People often arrive at Wikipedia and imagine they are [[WP:RGW|righting a great wrong]]—the community is very familiar with situations like that. If there is a problem with the article, it is necessary to ''calmly'' explain the issue ''without'' mentioning other editors or irrelevant stuff like "sockpuppet" (actually, meat puppet as I see has been explained). No one cares about that—the only thing that matters is discussion about article content. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq#top|talk]]) 05:15, 22 March 2017 (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)