![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210822162938im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Yamato_during_Trial_Service.jpg/220px-Yamato_during_Trial_Service.jpg)
Editor Feedback, Talk, and Sea Shanty Singing Area
All Hands on Deck! There's conversation to be had with other editors!
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210822162938im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons at Women in Red
Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Re: consensus on the lab leak
See: Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus)
This template has gone on the top of multiple "COVID origins" talk pages to document the hard-won consensus achieved wherever possible. It has been created mostly by moderates on the issue, but editors from both sides have contributed. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: Ah, you're a godsend! What a fine template too, a fine price of Wikipediaing that folks have assembled. I knew there had to be something but I've kept my toes out of the matter...seemed not worth my hard won effort... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek:, happy to help! :) It is definitely a quicksand-filled pit, that much I can affirm from personal experience. Novem Linguae maintains a neutral and up-to-date list of all the affected articles, discussions, etc. over at his user essay. The essay is not, strictly speaking, wiki-voice neutral, but it is not intended to be. The resources attached, though, are useful!
- Here are the most recently contentious articles (which are, coincidentally, also mostly where that template is transcluded):
- Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- COVID-19 misinformation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Peter Daszak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gain-of-function research ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Li-Meng Yan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- DRASTIC ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nicholas Wade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Here are the most recently contentious articles (which are, coincidentally, also mostly where that template is transcluded):
- I think the disruption has actually overall gone slightly down in the last week or so. We've seen a lot worse at Ivermectin and Bret Weinstein, because this is where the tabloid press/tv news pundits were most vocal! There were some disruptions at GoFR, but after ArbCom helpfully answered my clarification request, and ToBeFree semi-protected it, that's mostly been taken care of.
- Even so, I do fear that this newest ArbE will result in a resurgence of disruption, which is what happened after the last ArbE where User:Normchou was TBAN'd [1]. We saw a huge increase in disruptive editing, and provoking/grandstanding on all sides. I proposed the Normchou ArbE, and I felt like I was walking on eggshells! Some users tried to ArbE me, unsuccessfully about a week later [2]. Anyway, suffice to say, it has gotten pretty heated :) More admin/Arbcom eyes are always appreciated. Thank you for any help you can provide. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek, please note that I didn’t participate in the WP:AE against Shibbolethink, because as I said here [3], I think he is a good editor. The only problem is that - as I will explain in my AE Statement - he tends to mix his own personal opinions with expert opinions quoted in reliable sources, and sometimes even counter them, without finding a source to back it up. This is our main disagreement, and apparently I’ve upset him for being a WP:RANDY, so I am trying to get him to provide the difs of the personal attacks I have been accused of, so that we can deal with that and any other conduct issues separately to the content dispute. CutePeach (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
- An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
- Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
- Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.
- You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.
Don't edit if you don't know what your doing
I don't know what you did but you messed up a bunch on the 1950's playboy playmate page. You can not bring up certain info on some of the playmates. It's almost like you deleted them. If you don't know what your doing don't mess with it! Moose696 (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Moose696, Indeed its almost like I have deleted them, as I have redirected them to the decade articles. See the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019. I am also going to redirect the rest but had simply gotten distracted. Wikipedia is not a directory of Playboy models, and so I am streamlining our coverage of the topic. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1979
Greetings. I saw the comments you made on these list pages, which were all reverted by a very inexperienced editor. I've returned the redirects, as per your rationale, but the one above was just reverted, see comment in edit summary. While I agree with your assessment of the 2019 afd discussion, the closer did not expressly say they should all be redirected. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Onel5969, Well it appears I made a bold move, and have overestimated how well folks would accept that deleting one would apply to the others. There were four "delete all" votes, three "deletes", and a discussion about how the decades articles were superior. The AfD nearly deleted all the pages, so I felt that simply going through and redirecting them would in fact be a time saver, instead of having a massive AfD. But apparently not. I totally disagree that 1979 is somehow different than 2019. The same problems apply: the list is not notable by itself and its a big BLP problem. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- CaptainEek, I actually don't think it's that bold a move. I am of the same mind, hence my action in restoring your redirects. In addition, I feel there is no need for separate annual pages, the decade pages can be expanded, if necessary. In fact, I think folks looking for information on these models are better served keeping the information together, less jumping around. So far, that's the only redirect that I've been notified was reverted. Onel5969 TT me 16:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi CaptainEek. Thanks for the AfD. There is a lot of history with these lists, and I'm not sure what the proper steps are in this case. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of 2014, which is the tip of the iceberg. I've mostly ignored those lists since. Look at the edit history of the 2014 article to get a feel of what was going on.
- Other discussions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995, Talk:List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_6#Proposal_to_change_List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of..._to_simple_lists, Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1955. There are more. Many of these lists were created to work around AfDs of articles for individuals who were Playmates of the month.
- Given all that's gone on, more discussion may be needed to create clear consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_15#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2014 --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also vote for more discussions. Playmates of the year 2019 get little to no press coverage, but they were part of American culture more much deeply in the 1970s and 80s. Beauty pageants have also dried up substantially in the last 20 years, that doesn't make the prior 100 years of history lose notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Milowent, Hipal Onel5969 see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates of XXXX CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210822162938im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Revisiting a sock puppet investigation
Hello CaptainEek,
I saw you conducted the WikiEditorAd sockpuppet investigations in May this year. In March, I had requested to investigate WikiEditorAd too as part of the Sonofstar sockpuppet investigations, but the Checkuser did not find a connection. I looked closely at WikiEditorAd's socks, and found that their behaviors was very similar to the behaviour of the accounts I suspected to be sock puppets.
Now, I don't know how the Checkuser works exactly, but I wanted to know if it was possible to see if the the accounts I suspected of sockpuppetry in March are connected to those that were banned in May. Can that be considered? Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Mottezen, unfortunately, the account is now too old to Checkuser, as the CU database only stores info from the last three months. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mottezen: nah, their last edit was in February CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Aussie Article Writer
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but if Aussie Article Writer is Arbcom blocked, logically all of his other accounts (Iridescent should be able to give you a full list, but it includes at least Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs)) should be blocked and tagged in the same manner? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, Good question, I've asked the Committee and I'll get back to you. A list of all accounts would certainly be helpful :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, Barkeep and Kevin got the rest of them today, which I appreciate since I was quite busy IRL–first day of law school! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Opinions as facts
Hi CaptainEek, just wondering if you can check out the additions to another page that may violate Wikipedia standards? The contributor is not neutral, particularly as he has a podcast and he's trying to make a name for himself (I can direct you to his Twitter feed with proof, if you need it) by constantly attacking the organization whose page he has modified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Alliance_International#Criticism
In particular, he is presenting an opinion on the board meeting held in July, based on speculations of a disgruntled affiliate member: 'At that AGM, there were again complaints about the AAI Board preventing legitimate Members from voting. For example, the Humanist Union of Greece complained[18] that despite being a fully paid-up AAI Member, they were not permitted to vote during elections for Director roles, and they were not permitted to discuss their complaint during the AGM.' I know for a fact this is a deliberate skewing of the facts, as I was present at this board meeting. This is not a neutral presentation and presents a one-sided retelling of the events as the participant would like to frame it.
You can also see his comments on the talk page. Sylvesterjay (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sylvesterjay, I partialblocked them from the page itself so they have to chat on the talk page. I encourage y'all to cleanup the criticism section, not really my place given the partialblock. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
May I have these old sandboxes of mine deleted, please?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox_2
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox_3
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox_4
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox_5
- and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox_SL
Thanks in advance. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- StrangeloveFan101, I have deleted them. In the future though you needn't ask an admin, simply add the WP:G7 deletion tag to the page and an admin will come by and delete it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210822162938im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)