Jump to content

User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Sdrqaz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

January 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sir George Young, 6th Baronet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bt postnominal

The postnominal "Bt" is not used when the baronet is also a peer. I notice you've made several edits recently that include this error. Opera hat (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Opera hat: I realise that this is many years too late a reply, but I did not want your advice to be left without a response. Thank you for your advice and I have incorporated it into my subsequent edits (since 2016, not since now).
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Endashes

Hello.

Thanks for adding the styles sections to various nobility articles. I'd just like to point out to you that per MOS:DATERANGE, year ranges are separated by an endash (–), not a hyphen (-).

Thank you.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and advice. I'll do so accordingly.
Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Endashes, not emdashes, in the case I referred to. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello again.
I'm afraid you've misread MOS:DATERANGE above. There should be no spaces – non-breaking or otherwise – in year ranges. Year ranges should be like 1897–1904, nothing else. If months are involved, there should be spaces, e.g. October 1897 – February 1904. In the latter example, there could be a non-breaking space, but not in the former example.
Please read through the guideline again, paying particular attention to the examples, before you continue. Or it will be too much for other editors to correct.
Thank you. (If you want to answer, please do it here to keep the conversation in one place.)
HandsomeFella (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey. Sorry, I did  – instead of – I'll do – in the future.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and HandsomeFella's talk page.

QC Postnominal

Hi! Thanks for your edits of the article on Lord Porter. I just wanted to point out that in England & Wales at least (apparently it's not the case in New Zealand) judges drop the QC after name upon appointment to the bench. Many thanks again for your edits!

Atchom (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Atchom: This is a very late response, but thank you for telling me so gently. Your kindness is greatly appreciated and advice gladly taken to heart.
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

British Government frontbench rank

Hey, I was slightly perplexed by your 12:47 15 February edit on British Government frontbench page. The rank of the posts that they were appointed to had been kept in the previous edits and I don't understand the logic behind not having the ministers in rank order (so Secretary of State, Minister of State, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State). Please enlighten me regarding this matter.

Sdrqaz (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I placed the ranks to show what level they hold in terms of ministerial seniority. Then there's also the appointments eg Minister for Defence Procurement and Minister of State for the Armed Forces which are the responsibilities they hold. Under those pages, they show the post holder, regardless if they were PUSS or Min of State. Those holding these appointments for example, can alternate or be promoted. Philip Dunne (Ludlow MP) for example was a Min State (I believe) for Defence Procurement, then Harriet Baldwin took the appointment but as a PUSS. It switches in every reshuffle. Feel free to rank them accordingly but I think it's best to show both rank and appointment and commons first, lords last. I'm not an expert on the formatting so thanks for the labelling.
Finding out who's responsible for what is a mystery with news and gov.uk not updating properly.
BlueD954 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi BlueD954, thanks for getting back to me. It's just that previously that page had integrated the offices as one piece of information so the role was Minister of State for Middle East & North Africa instead of Minister for Middle East & North Africa, Minister of State. I had followed this format because it seemed more concise as it coalesced the information into a single piece. Also I'd like to clarify what you mean when you write that you want to put rank and appointment first. Obviously rank means Secretary of State, Minister of State etc but what do you mean by appointment?
I'd also like to agree with you on how it's been difficult to find information. I've been using Ministerial appointments: February 2020 for most of my information.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I edited accordingly so format as you wish. Also, better if you leave the conversation on your talk page - keep it to one page. BlueD954 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation consolidated from conversations on both my talk page and BlueD954's talk page here and here.

Nomination of List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, I am most grateful for your notification that the article is up for deletion and have contributed to the discussion accordingly. Although I am certain that you are a far more experienced user of Wikipedia than I, it seems like the discussion has gotten slightly personal and perhaps uncivil. I think it would be conducive to the health of the discussion that we refrain from engaging in incivility when discussing matters with fellow users who, like you and I, simply want what is best for Wikipedia at large.
Sdrqaz (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sgarvey

Howdy. I guess @Sgarvey: is going to ignore everybody & not respond to anyone at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, are you talking about their edits regarding California's 21st? I was under the impression that it was called today by the AP.[1]
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
More concerned, that he won't answer to anybody, period. No matter what the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. GoodDay, there's not much either of us can do, unfortunately. Obviously it's ideal for someone to reply, but I guess it's their prerogative.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ @AP_Politics (November 27, 2020). "BREAKING: Republican David Valadao wins election to U.S. House in California's 21st Congressional District, beating incumbent Rep. TJ Cox. #APracecall at 10:32 a.m. PST. #Election2020 #CAelection" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

Antony Blinken

Hi, I noticed your recent edit to restore the infobox on Antony Blinken, and I thought it would be helpful if you would also express your views at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Antony Blinken & co. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, thank you for the notification. I'll contribute my views accordingly.
Sdrqaz (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here.

Mo Brooks

I added an "s" to his last name, since it was spelled wrong. And you accuse me of vandalism. How dare you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.255.119 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We both know that your edit summary was inaccurate. Anyone can access the history of a page and check the diffs, you know. And your diff here shows that you clearly did a lot more that just change 'Brook' to 'Brooks'. Kindly refrain from vandalism. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I checked the edit history He did not vandalize you karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWaffle! (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

SammyWaffle, please read the edit that they made here before calling people names. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Sdrqaz well at first i did not see the other part but because his attacks on democracy I think the comment was more than appropriate SammyWaffle — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
SammyWaffle, that may be your opinion, but Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. Editors cannot pass judgement on the subjects of pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Mo Brooks.

Blinken & the others

Howdy. It's too bad, that the infobox at Blinken is being kept different from the other Biden cabinet nominees :( GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It is just Nominee at the moment, isn't it? I've kind of given up on the issue, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus here. It is bugging me slightly, but I don't really want to get into edit wars. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The WP:BIO/Noticeboard discussion, should be made into an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, go ahead. But I don't think a different result will be achieved: it'll probably be split again. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I've just branded the discussion-in-question, a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, you'll probably have to follow the procedure at WP:RFCST, with a "brief, neutral statement ... or question" etc. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I've considered it, but the opening complain of the discussion, seems to have made it clear. Feel free to come up with a statement, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My Thanks

Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm excited to help out with whatever I can. Masterofpresidents (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Masterofpresidents: It was my pleasure! A word of warning: political pages on Wikipedia can get a little hectic and so can be a bit of a 'baptism by fire'. If your edits can undone, don't panic! It's completely natural and will happen. Don't fall in the trap of undoing their revert; that would be viewed as edit warring by some users and might get you banned. Instead, open up a dialogue with them either on their talk page or on the article's talk page. I hope that was clear! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me! Sdrqaz (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I figured that would be the case with political pages, and thankfully I expected that reality. I have recently been attempting to improve my ability to put aside initial irrational emotion in the case of a political disagreement, so it should be smooth sailing. Thanks again for the advice! Masterofpresidents (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Masterofpresidents: That sounds excellent. I look forward to seeing your edits on Wikipedia and I hope that you stay on to continue contributing. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Cameroon

Cameroon Under Paul Biya Joins Iran Nicaragua North Korea Syria and Venezuela as a Rouge State Because they Restrict Human Rights on its own People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:247:F900:7C6E:E62D:92BC:CFC0 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That may be so, but you need to cite a source that it is considered as such by the United States. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Rogue state.

Reply to December 2020

Hi, I would like to explain that every chromebook in my school has the same IP address, and that it's likely that only one person actually made the unconstructive edits, and no one else actually did anything. 107.181.16.42 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately, other editors cannot differentiate between the different people using that IP address in New York. If you plan on making edits to Wikipedia, I'd advise you to create an account so that if your school's IP address is blocked again, you can continue editing. If you plan on just using Wikipedia to read pages, you wouldn't (to my knowledge) be affected by such a block.
Sdrqaz (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at River valley civilization.

Amazon deforestation coverup + Blackstone Paid Wiki editors

Hello. You reverted my edit to Blackstone Group - following their PR team previously reverting the edits. Blackstone have a history of paying Wikipedia editors to manage their listing and remove anything they don't like.

May I ask you to check this https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-colleagues-examine-role-of-private-equity-firm-blackstone-in-deforestation-of-amazon-rainforest

This topic is not a "controversy" - this is not some celebrity's latest plastic surgery.

Further I will quote Wikipedia user Grayfell from the Blackstone talk page: "All of this is in the larger context of climate change. This is encyclopedically significant because deforesting the Amazon is a direct threat to human welfare, so this should also be at least clearly indicated or directly mentioned."

I will be restoring the edits and if you have any further comments you are welcome to discuss on my talk page or the article talk page. Colinmcdermott (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit and its reversion at The Blackstone Group. Reply made at Talk:The Blackstone Group per editor's stated preference. Pertinent information can be found at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Best wishes for 2021

… Karen :) Hope you have a wonderful holiday season (if you celebrate any or all of the relevant holidays!) and a wonderful new year. It's been great working with you these past few months. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

HAHAHA! I've just began compiling a list of insults people have used against me on Wikipedia and that certainly made the cut. Who would've thought that monitoring recent changes would lead to more insults? Anyways, thank you very much AleatoryPonderings and likewise to you too! It's been quite remarkable how prolific you've been in half a year and I have greatly enjoyed working with you and hope to continue doing so in 2021.
Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Aksel. Rykkvin

Hi you commented that an edited to Aksel Rykkvins Wikipedia seemed strange and not neutral? I am not sure why you think this . Aksel has been studying singing with Matthew Mark Marriott each week since early 2019 . Matthew is now Aksels main teacher. So it seemed natural for this important update to be included . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.147.58 (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I was just slightly concerned because you added "internationally acclaimed" to it. I've seen that you re-added the information without that, so that's fine. Do you have a source for this information?
Sdrqaz (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
yes . here you can have the confirmation where Aksel Rykkvin is working with his current teacher .https://www.musikkeriet.no/matthew-marriott-musikkeriets-sangmester-for-unge-voksne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.147.58 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I've added it to the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Aksel Rykkvin.

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you very much! I'll carry out my duties to the best of my ability.
Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Adem Jashari

Adem Jashari edits are not my "preferred" version. Wikipedia is full of edited propaganda and his page is a hot spot for Serbs to commit their brainwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're making edits and they're being reverted and you revert them back, that is reverting back to your preferred version, because, well, you prefer that version. You need to provide evidence that it is "edited propaganda". You're removing information that is sourced to books and other sources; just saying it's propaganda is not an adequate reason to remove them. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
It's your preferred version. Why did you edit the original Adem Jashari wikipedia page when it was factual? Saying he killed his own family when the sole survivor, Besarta Jashari, went on BBC explaining what the Serb army did. That's the first example of you providing false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, obviously we both have preferred versions. But I'm not the one who has edited it seven times in less than a day. I'm not sure what you mean by editing it when it was factual; I've not edited the page before today. I'm also not sure what you mean when you claim that I said Jashari killed his family. Please provide a quote stating that. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
This shouldn't be based off of "preferred" versions. It should be based off of facts. That's what was edited it - a claim that Adem killed his own family. His niece had an interview telling what actually happened. But you have also reverted it back several times in a day to false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.89.31 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree that it should be based on facts. But you are removing sourced information and replacing it with information that is not sourced. In the eyes of Wikipedia, that is not basing information off the facts: the very opposite (see WP:V). One of the passages you removed was The only survivor was Besarta Jashari, Hamëz Jashari's daughter. She claimed that the policemen had "threatened her with a knife and ordered her to say that her uncle (Adem Jashari) had killed everyone who wanted to surrender." Given that what you're saying is in agreement with that, I am baffled that you would remove the passage. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Adem Jashari.

Five tildes

"In general, when communicating with others, you should use one of the previous options and not only a timestamp". GiantSnowman 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, as I pointed out on your talk page and as it says in your quote, it is a general principle. To my mind, creating an RfC does not count as "communicating with others" in the conventional sense on talk pages and WP:RFCST is clear on the issue. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at GiantSnowman's talk page.

Congress

Half an hour isn't really too early, and their terms expire today in any event. And if it isn't really settled law at what exact minute they expire, it's hardly inaccurate.--Killuminator (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Wikipedia does not say that something has happened when it has not happened yet. That is not what it does. If it is early by an hour or early by a year, it is still too early. Moreover, please read Section One of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think a constitutional amendment is more than settled law. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It's noon sharp in Washington D.C. or do we now wait for noon for every Congressional district? You could argue that it isn't settled law by that alone. They represent narrow constituencies after all, not the entire country, and the constitution is tight-lipped about that. This isn't me seriously arguing that we should do that but one could make the case based on that. Individual pages for these various politicians had already been edited to reflect expired terms before I started my edits on that page. --Killuminator (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Killuminator: It is very clearly Washington, DC. I don't think anyone has ever seriously called for the president's inauguration to be delayed until noon is reached in Hawaii. Moreover, 15 U.S.C. § 262 states that In all statutes, orders, rules, and regulations relating to the time of performance of any act ... it shall be understood and intended that the time shall insofar as practicable ... be the United States standard time of the zone within which the act is to be performed; 4 U.S.C. § 72 make it clear that All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia. It is inevitable that editors will jump the proverbial gun, but just because it is occurring on other pages doesn't make it right. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself in response to this edit.

Eyak language

I updated the Eyak language page to have the proper endonym for the language: dAxhunhyuuga’. Iyaq is an exonym, not the native name. See here (page 11) and here. Please undo your removal of the edit. 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I see: thank you for providing me with a source. I have reverted myself and have struck through my notice on your page. Sorry for the misjudgement; the use of unusually-placed upper- and lower-case letters in the same word is usually a tell-tale sign of vandalism. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! 2601:240:CB80:8770:C1C7:ADD6:9711:FC46 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Eyak language.

Symbiosis

Hi,

You removed my changes on the page Symbiosis. I did not provide a new reference as the references already there are actually saying what I wrote. They had been badly summarized before, it was confusing. You can check this by reading the references. Also, what I wrote is on this wikipedia page already: check Cell nucleus, under Evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.83.72 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have copied the source citation from that page over to Symbiosis.
Sdrqaz (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this edit at Symbiosis.

Happy wikibirthday!

Just visited your page and saw your userbox. As it happens, it's my real-life birthday—an amusing coincidence :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Aww, thank you AP! You're the only one who noticed :( I cringe when I think back to the edits made when I was starting out...
This coincidence is a sign, I'm sure of it, of ... something? Happy (real) birthday; I hope you had a good start to 2021! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Great job your doing Phillypaboy123 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Aww thank you Phillypaboy123! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. FASTILY 02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Fastily! I'll use it to the best of my ability. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lara Trump

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here; parallel discussions took place at Talk:Lara Trump and at ANI.

Kamala Harris

Indeed, her resignation from the US Senate doesn't take effect until Noon EST, on 18 January 2021. But, trying to make that stick, is like spitting up against the Niagara Falls. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Very true GoodDay! Sometimes feels futile... Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I used to go through this kinda thing every 2, 4 or 6 years. This year, was the first time, I just gave up & updated or allowed other to update new governors & new lieutenant governors, at the stroke of mid-night of the inaugural day. Figured 12 or less hours, wasn't worth the stress :) GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I probably won't make the edits myself, but allowing others to do them sounds like a good idea in the long run. At the end of the day, it's a website, after all. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jihad Watch RFC closure

Hi Sdrqaz, I just wanted to drop a quick thank-you for closing the RFC finally. I know it was probably quite a bit to read through; I never imagined when I filed it that I'd wind up so personally and abusively attacked just for filing a required procedure. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: No problem. It didn't seem like a particularly pleasant RfC and I was happy to be uninvolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

With this close you accuse "many editors" of extending criticism to the proposer. Can you name them and/or point to their edits? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I'd rather not list users and diffs because the RfC is now closed. However, I recognise your point that many criticisms were not explicitly directed towards the proposer. I was uncomfortable with some of the ways in which editors were dismissive, given that formal deprecation requires going through the RfC process. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Criticism directed towards the proposer can be criticism of the proposition not of the proposer, so I don't see whom you refer to and I believe that the word "dismissive" could be applied to the act of discarding criticisms. But "implied refusal to seriously consider or discuss an objection" merely violates an essay (WP:ACD), I won't challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Peter, I hope that you haven't felt that your concerns have been ignored and if that is what you feel, I hope that your perception of the closure is not changed because of it. I am considering rewriting the summary on the basis of your objections, but the core finding of consensus is unchanged and I have found no need to do so. In a way, my comments on editor conduct in the RfC were peripheral to the actual thrust of the RfC: whether the source should be deprecated. I was taken aback by comments such as accusing editors of wanting to jerk [them]selves off to the accomplishment [...] and others who called it a waste of time when RfCs are required to deprecate sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Since those were remarks by JBL I think you could have taken that up with JayBeeEll rather than bring it to your closing summary. I don't find it logical for you to support RfCs because they're required to deprecated sources when the point is that there's no requirement to deprecate sources, so will object that you are "involved" if I notice repetitions of such support in future closes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Peter, I did take it up with JBL following my close, and we had quite a pleasant discussion. The role of the closer is to summarise what happened in the discussion. I felt that I was well within my rights to say that there was "some criticism of the proposer". Have you read the archived version of the RfC (amended on 21 January)? As I have pointed out, the comment on tone and tenor was peripheral to the core finding of consensus. Yes, there is no requirement to deprecate sources, but since an RfC has been offered in good faith, editors may as well !vote on the issue.
I am also baffled by the commitment to object to my subsequent closures. I do not blindly support all deprecation RfCs. I am merely repeating what is the process for formal deprecation: WP:DEPREC is quite clear on the matter. WP:DEPS also states that the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. That means that where editors believe the source to be de facto deprecated, that does not preclude going through the formal deprecation process. If you wish to take my future closures of RfCs up to a higher authority, you will be well within your rights to do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here.

117th Congress

The article on 116th Congress does not include the former President and President Pro Tempore. That is why Pence's information is removed. Jusfiq (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jusfiq: That comparison does not hold up because there was no change in President of the Senate or President pro tempore in that Congress. If you look at the 115th United States Congress, where the President of the Senate changed from Biden to Pence, both are listed. Please revert your own edit. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following my message at Jusfiq's talk page.

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning on eliminating "coalition" from the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress. If you look at the page for the 110th United States Congress, you'll see that it does have the Senate majority listed as a Democratic (coalition). We need to be consistent. Either we add "coalition" to the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress, or we eliminate "coalition" from the 110th United States Congress. It's important to note the Democratic caucus' majorities for both congressional sessions were predicated upon the same conditions: Democrats did not have enough seats to constitute a majority in and of themselves; their "majority" was only made possible with two Independent senators agreeing to align with their caucus. Therefore, I would argue that the majority caucuses in the 110th and 117th Congresses is and were truly multiparty coalitions. Wxstorm (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wxstorm, I suggest removing them from both. Do you have a reliable source that refers to the Democratic majority as a "coalition"? Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say, not what we want them to say. If my understanding of political coalitions is correct, coalitions are formed for the purpose of creating a majority. Given that Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King have caucused with the Democrats throughout their time in the Senate, the Democratic caucus is not considered a formal coalition in the usual senses of the term. This was not an ad hoc affair like the Cameron–Clegg coalition, with a formal coalition agreement. The independent senators have been effectively subsumed into the Democratic Caucus. Moreover, it cannot be called "multiparty" as independents do not belong to another party. The Senate Democratic Caucus here includes both the senator from Maine and the senator from Vermont as being Democratic senators. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The bone of contention here is whether the two Independent senators in the 110th and 117th Congresses were Democrats. Based on party affiliation, Joe Lieberman, Bernie Sanders, and Angus King are not members of the Democratic Party. It's well known where Bernie Sanders sits on the issues; he proudly refers to himself as a Socialist. However, Joe Lieberman and Angus King are truly centrist figures who voted with both Democrats and Republicans (both were former Democrats who either left the party on their own or were ousted from the party). In the case of Joe Lieberman, he lost Connecticut's 2006 Democratic Senate Primary to Ned Lamont (who's the current Governor of Connecticut). After losing the Democratic Primary, Lieberman ran as an Independent, and won re-election largely from the support of Republican voters in the 2006 General Election. With that being said, I'm thinking it would not be correct to call the majority Senate caucus in either the 110th or 117th Congresses the Democratic caucus; rather simply the "Majority Caucus" since the caucus is not made up entirely of Democrats. Now, if 51 (50 with Harris as VP) Senate seats were held by actual members of the Democratic Party, I could see the majority caucus being called the "Democratic Caucus" since they would hold an outright majority in the chamber without the need for non-Democrat Senators to join their caucus to form a majority. Indeed, you're correct in there are no real good examples of "coalition" caucuses in Congress throughout our country's history. However, they have occurred several times in state legislatures, most recently in Washington State where a few moderate Democrats in the state Senate caucused with Republicans to create what was called the "Majority Coalition Caucus" from 2012 to 2017. Similar arrangements took place since 2000 in the New York Senate and in the New Mexico Senate (dubbed the "Cowboy Coalition," made up of Republicans and conservative rural Democrats creating a coalition majority caucus, leaving minority caucus consisting of more progressive urban/suburban Democrats). Just because a "coalition caucus" hasn't happened in the US Congress doesn't mean it can't happen.63.227.108.101 (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough answer. I'll admit to not knowing about the situations in Washington state, New York, and New Mexico (I assume you're referring to the Mama Lucy Gang), so I've learned something new. I was, however, aware of the electoral histories of Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King. I was not claiming that they are registered as Democrats, but they were part of the Democratic caucus. In most reliable sources, they are described as being "independents caucusing with the Democrats" or something along those lines. I agree that a coalition down the line can happen (never say never in politics), but I fail to see how this can be accurately described as being one. Your examples of the state legislatures seem to involve politicians crossing party lines to join a coalition specifically for the purpose of forming a majority. This is not the case with the aforementioned senators. They did not leave the Democratic caucus after they were not needed. They did not have a coalition agreement, unlike the Majority Coalition Caucus. They have effectively been subsumed into the caucus: they are Democrats in all but name. I reiterate my point above: we need reliable sources that refer to the Senate majorities in the 110th and 117th Congresses as being coalitions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following my message at Wxstorm's talk page.

Can you assist at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray?

Hi, I work for Blackstone. I see you were recently active at the Blackstone article and appear to have a good sense of how to apply the NPOV policy. Can you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Jonathan D. Gray#Some edit requests regarding whether the Controversies section consists of a WP:COATRACK or not? Thank you, ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas, thank you for your message. I will do so, but will take some time to catch up with the situation at hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Jaffna District

There is no government link. one is broken and the other doesn't mention Jaffna as a twin city. I suggest you to look carefully at the citations. YaSiRu11 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@YaSiRu11: There is a government link. While the URL was broken, it was archived here. I added the archived URL to the page. You should not remove broken links and the information they supported without checking if the link had been archived.
The council page states this: a signing ceremony to twin Kingston with Jaffna, a district in the northern province of Sri Lanka.
The Surrey Comet states: [As the] country prepares to sever its ties with the European Union, Kingston has found itself a new Asian partner in the form of the Sri Lankan city Jaffna. Kingston Council has announced it is twinning with the city in a bid to build “greater understanding and sharing knowledge” in areas of governance, healthcare and education.
I do not understand where the confusion is, as it is quite clear that it has been twinned. Even if the government link had been broken beyond repair, the newspaper source would have sufficed. Please revert your own edit.
Sdrqaz (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
There is such only in the archive; no present evidence cannot be found on the website. It will be valid only if the present website claims that, but it doesn't YaSiRu11 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@YaSiRu11: I have never heard of that argument being advanced on Wikipedia and that argument flies in the face of the core guidelines that dictate how verifiability is carried out. If that were the case, many many pages would have most of their information removed. WP:DEADREF clearly states: Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. See Wikipedia:Link rot and Help:Archiving a source. I suspect that you have quite a few contributions where you removed information simply because the link was dead and would advise you to go back and do so, so that valuable information is not lost from Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that what I said was not clear to you. the current website for the International relation of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames doesn't recognize Jaffna as a twin city. It may or may not have ever been recognized as such. that is the reason I deleted the information. not because the page was not working. YaSiRu11 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@YaSiRu11: Could you provide me with a link to this international relation website? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Jaffna District.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here.

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 12 ‎ that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Toddst1, thank you for the note and sorry for the inconvenience. I'll be sure to keep this in mind when reviewing those pages in the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. We appreciate your help! Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User group

Hi Sdrqaz, On the page where I can see my edit count, I noticed a category called User Group (which is empty in my case). Could you tell me what those are and how I can become a member? Best wishes Lev21 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lev21! I assume you're referring to your page at Special:Preferences. Because you're a new member, it won't show any user groups. However, after you've made ten edits and your account is four days old, you become an autoconfirmed user, which allows you to edit semi-protected pages and create pages. Some pages on Wikipedia are extended-confirmed protected, which means that they can only be edited by users who are extended confirmed (30 days old and 500 edits).
All in all, I wouldn't worry too much about those things. Few pages are semi-protected, and even fewer are extended-confirmed protected. After a week or so a couple of days, you should be autoconfirmed.
If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me! Sdrqaz (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC) corrected 17:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Shadow docket

Hi Sdrqaz. I noticed that you've started a draft at Draft:Shadow docket. This is a topic that interests me as well, and if you would like, I would be happy to help flesh out the draft and get it into mainspace. I don't want to step on your toes, however, as it seems like you have a plan for writing the article already, so I'd also be happy to step back and let you take the lead. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mz7. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; I take quite a while composing messages. Thanks for the kind offer and for adding the template to the draft. I'm surprised by your interest, since the shadow docket is quite an obscure concept! Obviously, you're free to edit the page (WP:OWN etc), but I'd prefer to potter along and work on it for now, if you don't mind.
I am, however, maybe thinking of putting it up for GA some time down the line (wishful thinking, perhaps) and would love to pick your brains and get your expertise on the matter. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Heh, that's what I thought too—you can imagine my surprise when I discovered someone else had already started a draft for the topic. As I said, I'm happy to leave you to it. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement, Mz7! Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Projsock discussion

Thank you for your comment, but I would not describe my contribution to that discussion as at all elegant! Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You're selling yourself short there, Thryduulf! You saved me having to flesh out my reasoning further and captured how arbitrary the restrictions are, given how the identical discussion held in a different venue would be prohibited just because of where it took place. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my !vote at WP:VPPOL, which was building on this !vote by Thryduulf.

Response

I'm surprised something like that's been on your mind for a while but don't worry about it, it's all good. I learned something new in the process too. I didn't feel slighted by the phrasing at the time, I understood what you meant after a back and forth talk so I didn't think badly of the intended or unintended tone behind it. --Killuminator (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind and gracious, Killuminator, thank you very much. Happy editing! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself a follow-up to this message. A related conversation can be found here.

On the removal of a reference from the "explainable AI" article

I believe that the addition of the reference was an attempt at self promotion of one of the authors of the article.By looking at the history of that article you can see that the reference was unnecessary. This is not the first time that Andreas(https://andreasplagiarism.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/andreas-theodorou-committed-plagiarism-in-his-phd-thesis/) has attempted to unnecessarily insert his name on AI articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindpit (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see, Mindpit; thanks for letting me know and sorry for the late response. It was difficult to tell that it was your intention because you didn't include an edit summary with your removal. If you feel an editor has a conflict of interest, you can report it (with evidence) to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at Explainable artificial intelligence.

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Congrats on being in the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers this month. Great job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, gratias tibi for the barnstar (and sorry for the late reply)! I didn't realise that there was something tracking it; just tried to chip away at that eternal backlog every once in a while. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Scott Mann

I'm not sure how to insert Scott Mann into British Government frontbench, can you help?

BlueD954 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, BlueD954; you caught me just as I had gone on a Wikibreak. I see that the information has now been added and I'm sorry to hear of your block. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

I just wanted to appologize for making my prank edit on Joe Manchins page and wasting your time having to review it and revert it back. I am sure that is as annoying to you as it was unneccesary for me to do. Enjoy your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B143:D99C:201F:102B:8CDF:E8D (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. It wasn't that annoying, just a minor inconvenience. I hope you enjoy your day too. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to these edits at Joe Manchin. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

Source for British Government Frontbench

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

I think this is the best source for the article British government frontbench. Do update if you like cause it is outdated.2401:7400:4009:6801:5CDD:2E5:A65D:6271 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll update it when I get the opportunity. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Scott Mann is unpaid. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-scott-mann-mp-as-a-government-whip-22-january-2021 2401:7400:4009:6801:799B:33A0:56B4:51AD (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. – Sdrqaz (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Zeki Alasya

Zeki Alasya best turkish actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZekiAlasyaMetinAkpinar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. In the future, kindly do not engage in sockpuppetry to publicise such valuable information. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Pertinent information can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stepgilara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. An associated edit from a similarly-named editor (Zekialasyametinakpinarrr) can be found here. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

Searching rendered text

Hi, I saw your post on the AWB talk page. Do you have an example of what you are looking for? What you might want to search for? I have some methods of getting around some AWB limitations. If anything comes of this discussion we can post on the AWB page. Regards, Neils51 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neils, thanks for the message. Necessary disclaimer: I'm pretty weak on the technical side of the encyclopaedia, so there's probably a blindingly obvious solution. A little bit of context as well: my last run of AutoWikiBrowser was to make MOS:QWQ changes, like this edit at Chief Wiggum, which involves searching for things like "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"]]" and changing it to 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish']]{{-"}}.
My two issues are this:
  1. I cannot make AWB differentiate between apostrophes and italic/bold markup. As many QWQ changes involve changing two inverted commas into one single inverted comma and one double inverted comma ('' into '"), searching for QWQ violations would throw up a lot of perfectly-valid uses of bold and italic. Searching the rendered text wouldn't have the same problem, as Ctrl-F doesn't look for things like italics. As I said at WT:AWB, I'm using a pretty conservative program so fewer false positives are thrown up, but that also means "true" positives are falling through the cracks.
  2. As AWB searches "in-source", it ignores what Lua modules render. This edit at The Simpsons (season 14) successfully changed "[['Scuse to {{"-}}[['Scuse, but ignored [['Scuse in § Episodes despite that creating the same rendered text. That's due to {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}} (I think, or at least one of the modules) wrapping every episode title with inverted commas.
I hope that's clear, and would be happy to clarify further (though my grasp of the jargon may not be great). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I believe this could be covered with regular expressions, even if they just indicate likely candidates. Tuning can then reduce false positives. If you can grab some examples you come across (article links would be fine) and put them in your sandbox that would help. Will have a look, catch you soon. Neils51 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'll do a dry run on AWB to try and root those omissions out. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my question at WT:AWB.

RE: Welcome to Wikipedia.

Dear Sdrqaz. Thank you for your welcome message. I hope you have a good day to. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ed! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Happy editing, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you again, I will ask and I'm glad of your kindness. I wish you happy editing as well. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I hope to see you around and look forward to those questions! All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really appreciate the assist at DYK. I've added sources to the nomination form. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again! 173.162.220.17 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure! It's a shame than non-autoconfirmed editors can't create DYK nominations themselves, and it's a nice, thorough article you've created there. I don't think there's much to do other than to wait, to be honest. The backlog at Template talk:Did you know is pretty long – your nomination is sitting at 26 May, with quite a few even older than it. I suppose that's one of the issues with an all-volunteer community: it's highly dependent on whether editors have the time to spare. Personally, ALT6 and ALT7 seem the most exciting ones and probably have the greatest chances of being approved, though you never know. I'd suggest looking at the nomination page every couple of days, but be patient! A reviewer will eventually come, make suggestions, and give feedback. I'll keep an eye on that nomination to see if I can help when that happens (though I'm no expert at DYK). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this Did You Know nomination.

My Apology about my commentary on "True and the Rainbow Kingdom"

Sorry about my commentary on "True and the Rainbow Kingdom" I know I was being honest about the show, but instead it was un-encylopedic and didn't conform to Wikipedia's standards. 😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸 Sorry about the laughing kitties. I definitely WAS NOT MOCKING YOU.

~meow~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.116.200 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Because Wikipedia isn't a forum, adding your own opinions to articles isn't allowed. Is there a reason you mentioned those two editors in your post-postscript? Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at True and the Rainbow Kingdom.

Thanks!

For reverting edits at Manoj Chauhan. If it keeps up, I'll log a page protection request. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I had stumbled across it in recent changes; that plan sounds good to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this reversion and this restoration at Manoj Chauhan.

Wish you did not call out "copyright" issues with an experimental page I had created

Hi (I don't know your name),

I wish you had not called out a page I was using to experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books.

I am not angry :-)

But I am disappointed.

Take care,

- Mark Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.101.165 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mark, I'm Sdrqaz. This will probably sound hollow, but I'm sorry; copyright on Wikipedia is a serious issue. I had stumbled on your userspace pages when patrolling for vandalism and nominated some for speedy deletion before discovering the list of them at User:Markjgraham hmb/testcases. I consulted with a couple of administrators that were far more familiar with copyright law than I and they advised me to list them at copyright problems instead of mass-nominating them for speedy deletion, wanting to do something other than just deleting them all. The deleting administrator disagreed, obviously. Is there a reason why you were using Wikipedia to experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books? Wikipedia isn't a webhost, after all. Given that the information was taken directly from the books, the data from the pages you lost is still available on Google Books and should be retrievable. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this message at Markjgraham hmb's talk page and to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 22.

Nate Morris reminder

Sdrqaz, thanks again for offering to review this request to update the article to be more like the draft I've shared here. Happy to address any concerns with the proposed update, MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, other bits of work around the encyclopedia caught up with me. I'm reviewing the edit request now. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, thanks again for your help. Do you have a moment to review this request as well? You'll see another editor has already agreed with removing the horse racing section. Thank you! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I did see that request, but since that editor replied I thought he'd be doing the review instead of me. Because I don't want to step on any toes (unnecessarily, that is), I'll prod them a bit on the talk page. If they don't respond within the next few days, I'll do the review. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Since the other editor said to go ahead, I hope you're able to revisit this request. Thank you! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I've posted a final request for the Nate Morris article about the Politics section. You've been so helpful reviewing this draft, so I hope you're able to take a look at the last two requests. Thanks again! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

rfa

Hey, Sdrqaz. RfA is an incredibly stressful experience. I don't see that you've run one under this user name, but it's not something that needs extra questions. From the point of view of someone who hasn't run one, it's hard to understand how stressful every extra question can be. It's 24/7 for an entire week, and it can go horribly wrong. Unless your question actually is necessary for you to make a decision, it's actively harmful to the process IMO. —valereee (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Valereee; sorry for the late reply. You're absolutely right: I don't have the first-hand experience you have, I haven't been through the same incredibly stressful event, and naturally my ability to put myself in the candidate's shoes is limited. I think in light of recent events, the community is well aware that RfAs can go horribly wrong. However, just as I believe that badgering opposers is rarely helpful, haranguing !voters who ask what you may consider stupid questions isn't that helpful either, especially when the question has been answered and the candidate has professed (perhaps vi coactus) that they were happy to answer the question. If I'm completely frank, that feels like sticky behaviour, given that it's easy to dismiss it as moot.
I agree that questions should be necessary for you to make a decision, but people make decisions in strange ways and I'm ready to assume that they're not just trolling for the sake of it. Perhaps I'm naïve: I suspect that most others would have probably reverted the above message as trolling. Just as how being an administrator isn't just about memorising all the policies, questions at RfA aren't just about policy knowledge – they're also about trying to get a feel for the candidate and their temperament and !voters have strange ways of trying to suss that out. Having been unfamiliar with many of our recent RfA candidates, I'm a little more sympathetic to those strange methods. You probably disagree with me: like I said, we probably have opposing views on adminship and RfAs. But that's fine. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz, no worries on the delay, feel free to drop in and out!
I don't know why people insist on asking irrelevant questions at RfA. I suspect it's a combination of reasons. Some see that everyone can ask up to 2 and start trying to come up with questions. Some probably think it's a good way to raise their own profile. Some are just feeding their own egos/want to hear their voice. Some are asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable.
I comment on irrelevant questions because I hope it will help limit the number of irrelevant questions at future RfAs. I did, FWIW, go to that editor's page first and give her a link to Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? She doubled down (a very typical response to me trying to approach on user talk first) indicating that indeed understanding someone's philosophy/ideology/views regarding Wikipedia as a whole and as it specifically regards to editing was crucial to knowing whether to support their candidacy or not. IMO that's just horsefeathers. Seriously, what could any reasonable candidate possibly say that would be a "wrong" answer and make the questioner decide against supporting?
So, yeah, I'm going to comment, because for me, I can't come up with a better way to try to show people that irrelevant questions are looked at sideways by at least some other editors. And not only are they harmful to the process, they make the questioner look clueless. Other people are rolling their eyes. It's fine that you think it's the wrong way to go, though, and I'd love to discuss what you think might be a better way. Because I don't actually enjoy being kind of a dick. I just feel like someone's got to do something about this stupid questions that in some cases cause actual harm, and this is what I came up with. You may notice that I do not typically comment on opposes, no matter how silly those are. My little niche is silly, irrelevant questions. :D —valereee (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'll speak from personal experience. My first foray into RfA was just half a year ago, over five years after my account was created. And it showed: I asked a question that you would probably consider irrelevant. Prior to that, well, I had never interacted with any of the candidates, so I didn't consider myself qualified to !vote on them. And I sometimes still have that feeling. Despite what others may consider to be the leading nature of the question (most people asking about recall want the candidate to be open to it – shown here), that's not what I was looking for. I wanted to see his thought process and how the candidate justified himself. For me, my question didn't have to do with being a good way to raise [my] own profile or just feeding [my] own egos/want[ing] to hear [my] voice. I asked, well, because I was curious what the candidate thought and why.
As for the question in the current RfA, on the surface I can put it down to just curiosity. People want to know why administrators chose their usernames (see here and here – asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable). On a more cynical level, a bureaucrat once told me that !voters look for candidates that aren't too deletionist or too inclusionist, aren't too exopedianist or too metapedianist, and have certainly opposed for those reasons. I can't read the !voter's mind, but perhaps that was part of the reason why the question was asked. Maybe the !voter wanted to know if the candidate was more eventualist or immediatist or what their general philosophical views are (this RfA has a lot on such views).
As for what I think is the optimal approach, I don't have the perfect answer. My own approach (letting the candidate disregard any questions they don't want to answer) is a probably a little too laissez-faire for you, as you're a lot more invested in RfA reform than I am. If that path is unacceptable (as I assume it is), perhaps just prodding the questioner once would suffice. If the questioner gets it, great! If not, well maybe a seed has been planted for the future. Disengage. Trying to ram the point home may just cause the proverbial seed to be destroyed beyond repair and may only cause more drama. Some people take pleasure from being contrarian and that may become more likely as a result. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know some people take pleasure from being contrarian. I was hoping this editor was just clueless, as she hasn't got a ton of edits, which is why I posted to her talk. If she'd had 30K edits I might not have bothered. Curiosity is quite possibly a reason people ask questions at RfA, but curiosity is not a good enough reason to ask a question at RfA, any more than it would be during any other 24/7 high-stress period in a person's life.
Candidates disregarding questions puts the onus, along with all the risk, on the candidate. I've seen comments made about candidates ignoring a question, calling it disrespectful. Candidates already have enough on their plate. I'm trying to take some of that onus and risk off their plate, along with the stress caused by answering irrelevant questions.
I don't actually consider the question of recall irrelevant. I've recently argued we should make it the fourth question, or suggest to candidates that they include it as part of their acceptance statement, just to get it out of the way so that's one less question to deal with. I don't consider any question about understanding of policy in the areas you intend to work to be irrelevant. I don't consider any question that asks a candidate to address an actual area of concern about that candidate to be irrelevant. But unless you have a specific concern, backed up by something in their editing history, that this person's "editing philosophy" might be problematic for some reason, why do you need to put them through that exercise? Speaking from experience some candidates agonize over almost every question, spending hours thinking about them, composing answers to them, editing those answers, trying to figure out if there's a catch or gotcha in them, worrying they aren't answering fast enough but wanting to sleep on an answer to try to see if they can do better in the morning.
Some candidates don't mind answering these 'Life, the Universe and Everything' questions. I don't feel like the current candidate minded it. That doesn't make the question relevant, and it doesn't mean that some future candidate, asked the same question, might not be completely flummoxed by it and spend literally hours trying to figure out how to answer it, and for what? What possible answer could make the difference between supporting and opposing? And that's IMO the only good reason to ask a question at RfA: because if you don't get this concern answered, you can't support.
Sorry to be so long-winded. It's fine if we just have to agree to disagree. :) —valereee (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'll confess to being part of the problem, though I still prefer a response like "I decline to answer this question" over ignoring it (some candidates answer questions in strange orders instead of going through them chronologically, so it's not a nice feeling for a new editor like the one who asked that question). Candidates are indeed in a bit of a bind: refuse questions and get opposes from questioners and their friends, or answer and maybe slip up in their wording. Hmm. Something for me to ponder, thank you. I daresay that a candidate brave enough to refuse questions that are blatantly inappropriate would probably earn the respect of many editors, but at the risk of losing the support of the questioners.
I did see that discussion. I can sympathise with the idea of encouraging a candidate to get it out of the way, given that recall is one of the perennial questions, but I don't see it as anywhere near as important as declarations regarding alternate accounts or paid editing. As a result, I don't believe it is as crucial to knowing whether to support a candidate. While the community generally favours recall, I don't think it factors into their decision as much (it's quite hard to tell, given the last candidate to eschew recall was a bit of an outlier). Sdrqaz (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD 2, specifically Q5 and the ensuing discussion.



Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sdrqaz/Archive_1&oldid=1073320274"