User talk:General Ization/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:General Ization. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
Administrator changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Herbert Hoover
Check the history: this is an anniversary. This person is a longterm vandal, a complete a-hole, who inserts this kind of material in a variety of articles on living and dead people, from a variety of IPs in Louisville. (Here is the one who vandalized Hoover before.) Please keep an eye out; when there's one, there's more. What you saw them to, that's what they do--rapid revert, of that kind (and size) of content. Reverting them only adds to the mess in the article history--just report them right away. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Thanks, I did report immediately (after the first revert, because they were continuing the action of the previously blocked IP). Are you suggesting we just leave them be after reporting? General Ization Talk 02:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, more or less. Look at the history, and look at a year ago--it's just more disruptive, it's exactly what they want. You reverted sixteen times, and that's sixteen chuckles for them. I know it's hard to resist rollback. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Consider a one-month block of Special:Contributions/74.143.0.0/16. If you display the contributions you'll notice a lot of individual IPs that are already blocked. Judging from WHOIS these IPs may belong to Panera Bread. So it may be that our vandal hangs out on coffee-shop WiFi. We do sometimes block public libraries. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. Pinging @Drmies to consider your suggestion. General Ization Talk 02:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks EdJohnston. I remember having blocked a bunch of libraries, and even communicating with a librarian a while back. I made it three months--though a year would have been fine also. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed. Pinging @Drmies to consider your suggestion. General Ization Talk 02:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Consider a one-month block of Special:Contributions/74.143.0.0/16. If you display the contributions you'll notice a lot of individual IPs that are already blocked. Judging from WHOIS these IPs may belong to Panera Bread. So it may be that our vandal hangs out on coffee-shop WiFi. We do sometimes block public libraries. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, more or less. Look at the history, and look at a year ago--it's just more disruptive, it's exactly what they want. You reverted sixteen times, and that's sixteen chuckles for them. I know it's hard to resist rollback. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Reminder of Wikipedia policy
"A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-q@wikipedia.org." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.233.114.227 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This sucks
So I can't reference a book defending the movie and a site trashing it with fallacy can? Great job, Wikipedia. You are reliable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:53C:8593:7185:113B:2670:981E (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- You may not advertise a book on Wikipedia. If some other, independent source has reviewed the book, you may link to and/or quote the review. A Web site marketing the book is not an independent, reliable source. You're now on your final warning before being blocked. General Ization Talk 19:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Aren't you letting millions of sites and books by also referencing them into the entries? I've learnt Screenrant existed thanks to an article there. I simply don't get the "promotion" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:53C:8593:7185:113B:2670:981E (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have shared relevant policies with you. Don't violate them again. General Ization Talk 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Elle King’s page
Then why is the tag for Ellie Goulding on Elle King’s page? Please remove it from the page if you clearly think Ellie’s page shouldn’t have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elle_King
Stevieb2685 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Stevieb2685 (Steve)
- Not needed there either; removed. Did you genuinely think there was any chance of confusion between the two? Please don't base your edits on others' errors. General Ization Talk 03:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Deletion: Kim Jong Un edit
Hey! I believe you deleted an edit I made on the Kim Jong Un page because of an unreliable source. I have added the edit again with the New York Post voting the Korean Herald as a source. Kind regards! Ranieri001 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello (do you remember me? I'm from the Mauro Milhomem conversation.)
Hello General Ization,
I unfortunately have had some stress with Wikipedia's editors and rules, etc, and I stopped from editing from Wikipedia. I'm leaving you this invitation because, from what I believe, we would make an interesting conversation in a private chat to ourselves. I know I made wrong things on Wikipedia such as leaving the article which criticizes the Wikipedia's rules and about common sense. You are a gentle person, and you were very nice when we talked about the Barra do Garças air disaster edits.
Would you be willing to talk to me privately in a chat for us both? It would be nice to me, as I am having difficult times. But, if you couldn't talk, it's OK. Regards! --Cientific124 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
External links
I have added some discussion of this to the "Reputation" talk page and will add more.
But let me summarize. I'm uncertain what you mean about "inappropriate external links". When I add citations to material that is published in academic journals, and a small fraction of those citations point to work which I have published over the past 5 years, I do not consider this "self promotion" any more than it would be if I cite my own work in an academic journal. I am simply focusing on my area of expertise and the conversation with which I am most familiar and comfortable. As you will notice from my edits, I have included myriad improvements to the Reputation article, because it was in horrible shape, and less than 10% of the citations I added were to my own work.
I am new to editing Wikipedia, but not new to academic publishing, and I want to offer the best material possible on the areas with which I have expertise. OwenParkerPhD (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @OwenParkerPhD: See your Talk page, please. General Ization Talk 04:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amisom (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
I'm deleting my messages because I'm in the wrong place. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Bryan (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
  Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
| Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020. Current and upcoming events
Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports
September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news
Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
- @CR: Thanks -- best regards and wishes for the New Year to you also. General Ization Talk 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Technical news
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
Arbitration
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
|
Arbitration
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
Yo Ho Ho
.jpg)
Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.
Ugur Sahin
Hello General Ization,
I need your help protecting the article about Uğur Şahin. Nationalists are trying to mention in every sentence that he is from Turkey or possesses mistakenly the Turkish citizenship although there are no sources. Furthermore they claime stubbornly that he is a muslim.
LG
--Dersim9999 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm German and no nationalist. Sahin is a muslim, as you can read in "Die Zeit". "Wie seine Ehefrau ist Ugur Sahin Kind türkischer Einwanderer und Moslem." This is readable, even without subscription. Grimes2 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are not the one I'm talking about. We need more reliable sources because there are also interviews (For example: Good Morning Britain) saying that he indirectly consumes alcohol. Nontheless one thing is clear. There is no proof that he possesses the Turkish citizenship. --Dersim9999 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I can't find reliable sources for Turkish citizenship, but he was born in Turkey. Grimes2 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The main problem is that they are unnecessarily repeating the fact that he is from Turkey. The only reason why you don't see their actions is because I am deleting these impurities constantly. --Dersim9999 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dersim9999: To request page protection, please submit your request at WP:RPP. Depending on the nature of the disagreement and the quantity/frequency of disputed edits, protection may or may not be applied. The disputed content should be discussed on the article's Talk page (not on my Talk page) in an effort to achieve consensus. General Ization Talk 18:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
Technical news
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
Arbitration
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
We want to edit the page with right informations
Hello there,
The company involved in the article would like to request to input the right information. We currently have our own write-up and we would like to edit the article you published. For your kind consideration please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4451:77C:B100:614E:FD61:D0A6:88CD (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- As already explained on your Talk page and at the WP:TEAHOUSE, you and others associated with your company may not edit the article World Balance because it would violate our policies concerning conflict of interest. Any changes to the article identified as having been made by a user having COI will be undone, and the user who makes them is likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if they persist. In addition, your "own write-up" cannot be assumed to be an objective assessment and history of your company based exclusively on published, reliably-sourced facts, the requirement of articles here. Point out any factually incorrect information, or important omissions, on the article's Talk page. Otherwise, leave the article alone. See also WP:OWN. General Ization Talk 03:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, technically, your IP address should be blocked immediately, as a consequence of your having already persistently used three other IPs (two of which are now blocked) to try to remove content from the article within the past week. Once you are blocked, you are not just free to change IP addresses and continue the same edits. However, I'm going to hold off on requesting that, in the hope that you now understand why you cannot remove content from or edit the article, and how to properly request reasonable corrections to it. Please don't violate my trust in you; if you do, I will see that the IP you are now using is also blocked and that will be the end of my involvement with you. General Ization Talk 03:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, assuming that this is "your own write-up", it is completely unacceptable in an article here, because it is clearly not objective, it is written like an advertisement (which is understandable since it originates with you, rather than reliable, uninvolved news and/or industry sources) and it does not cite any independent sources for its information. General Ization Talk 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring at Bill Murray
Please see WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Except for the fact that the IP appears to be citing (in their edit summary) a policy that, to my knowledge, does not exist, and to be performing mass updates apparently based on that supposed policy. Do you think it's reasonably disputed that Bill Murray is a voice actor? Are you aware of any policy that says that (or "comedian") should not appear in the lead and/or short description of the article? (And I don't believe this has become an edit war. See my response to the IP.) General Ization Talk 05:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
World Balance edit request
Hi General Ization. Even though I don’t normally do edit requests, I was going to decline this outright since there’s no chance of any part of it ever being accepted; I didn’t, however, want to seem BITEy by declining an edit request so soon after it was made because the IP is at least trying to adhere to WP:COI (though they might need to follow PAID as well). The IP obviously hasn’t read WP:NOT or they have and simply don’t understand it. I’m not sure it’s necessary to come down on them like a ton of bricks just yet, but even leaving that on the article’s talk page might even be a WP:COPYVIO. Anyway, since you’ve tried engaging the IP about this on a couple of occasions already, I figured I’d let you have first explaining why that request simply is unacceptable if you want to give it a try. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, but Maproom seems to have gotten there first. General Ization Talk 13:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| yea, sorry about that, but I think I might make a page for Josh Carlson if you are OK with it. He is the director of the knowledge center at Chaddock. Thanks for the help! Bluefiredragon09 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC) |
- @Bluefiredragon09: If you can establish that Carlson is notable and document it by citing sources independent of himself and the college (his employer), both of which are unlikely to be objective and hence cannot be used as reliable sources for biographical content, have at it. Please note, however, that this may not be a trivial task. Also see WP:ACADEMIC. General Ization Talk 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
- Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Removed edit to Olympic Symbols page 2018
Hello, A few years ago you removed my edit to the Olympic Symbols page. It has since been re-edited and elaborated on to go back to the spirit of my original edit. I am the "niece" of "Harry" Hal Haig Prieste, the man who stole and returned the original flag to the IOC. My grandfather was his doctor and my family his caretakers. Check out this page with pictures of me & him, one of which even has the flag in NJ before he flew to Sydney with my grandparents to return it to the IOC. The original article I edited (which you retracted) listed the flag as being created in 1925. Since he stole the flag at the 1920 Antwerp Olympics (the first Olympics in which the 5 ring flag was used), it is impossible that it was created in 1925. While I did make a typo with "1912", (should have been "1913" in terms of the symbol of the rings or "1914" in terms of the rings appearing on the actual flag, based on the reference used on that portion of the page at the time), 1912 is a lot closer than 1925.
Just wanted to touch base to discuss the deletion as these events and history are a part of my own personal history.
Thank you Kjlamaina (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)."The Olympic Flag". Extract from: Textes choisis II, p.470. (written in 1931). Archived from the original on 28 August 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
Vandalism - BAPS Article
Hello General Ization, I noticed that you reverted some unsourced edits at the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha page and left a final warning on the unregistered user’s talk page. After your warnings were posted, the same user made another unsourced edit [1] that I reverted. Moreover, some of the other content he added was already properly included it in the relevant section within the article rather than in a stand-alone section by consensus on the article talk page as per WP:STRUCTURE. Accordingly, I have removed the improperly sourced material, and I would appreciate if you could block this disruptive editor and, if you feel appropriate, semi-protect the page. Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Apollo1203: Thanks for your follow-up at Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. I am not an admin, so I cannot block the IP or protect the page. I will submit requests at AIV and RFPP to do so. General Ization Talk 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done. [2] [3]. General Ization Talk 15:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- General Ization thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
U.S. Route 66
Hello, I am new to posting to Wikipedia. My intent is not to offend or cause animosity. I think Anthony Arno is a Route 66 enthusiast who is as much a historian of the road as anyone on the page. I'm not sure how to properly include him so apologies if I broke protocol. I did not see my email messages indicating I was incorrect until after I had reposted my comments. I thought I just did not save them properly. The podcast is one of the few cultural artifacts covering current events related to the highway without an alternate agenda such as religion or road-tripping in general and, therefore I think it is relevant. I read the bullet point about the cricket player and feel this is far more culturally relevant so im not sure what im doing wrong. I appreciate your guidance. i am not affiliated with the podcast just a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton.rodney (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Morton.rodney: I appreciate that you think it is relevant and that you were not trying to be disruptive. However, for the reasons I explained on your Talk page, it is not appropriate to include this content in the In popular culture section of the article. I considered myself whether it might make an appropriate external link rather than article content, and then saw that you added it there. However, another editor reverted that edit because it appeared to be promotional. You may wish to contact that editor to discuss their reversion. Please sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. General Ization Talk 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Edit warring over linkspam. I've requested a user block at AIV. Maybe page protection will be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
you told me that this was potentially relevant! i did not realize i had to get approval from someone to post a link! I reached out to the person as soon as they identified themselves. "I considered myself whether it might make an appropriate external link rather than article content, and then saw that you added it there. However, another editor reverted that edit because it appeared to be promotional. You may wish to contact that editor to discuss their reversion." no one reached out to me to discuss my revisionMorton.rodney (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Morton.rodney: Please see WP:BRD. It is your responsibility to begin a discussion on the article's Talk page (not your Talk page or another editor's Talk page) about content you think should be added but that other editors have removed or reverted. It is no one else's responsibility to "reach out to you". I think I and others have rather clearly explained on your Talk page why we think the content you are trying to add should not be added. However, please also see WP:CONSENSUS, which is how such decisions are made here, not merely by one editor (especially a new editor, seemingly unfamiliar with many of our policies) insisting something should be added to an article. General Ization Talk 05:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi, thanks for informing me that I'm not supposed to do those kinds of edits, but next time can you not call it vandalism? It was a harmless mistake. Mwiqdoh (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
PS - I was not modifying their comment because I put USA instead of USA so they look the same but it just links to the actual article and not the redirect. Unless they purposefully done that (I actually read the talk page) then I'm not changing what they said nor what it looks like. Mwiqdoh (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mwiqdoh: Here is the warning I placed on your Talk page:
- Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of physicists. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism.
- I did not say that your edits were vandalism. I said that they may appear to the other editors involved to be vandalism. In any case, both of the policies I related to you (WP:UPG,WP:TPO) exist for good reason, and do not include exceptions because you think your edits do not change the meaning of what was written. Please don't do it again. General Ization Talk 01:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't meaning to excusing myself or I saying exception, was just a useless FYI. But you put "caution" in your edit summary? You can say "Please don't edit other people's messages, even if it is to fix a redirect. For more information, you can check WP:UPG and WP:TPO. Thanks, and happy editing." Sorry for bothering you Mwiqdoh (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mwiqdoh: Many of us who monitor a large number of articles for vandalism and for other unconstructive edits respond to sometimes hundreds of these incidents in an hour. As a general rule, we are unable to customize the warning messages we use to adapt them to the exact circumstances represented by each incident. When you receive a warning of any kind, please consider the underlying message and respond accordingly, rather than reacting to what you perceive to be the tone of the message or the edit summary used, which was supplied by the tool I used to post the response on your Talk page. General Ization Talk 02:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @General Ization: I reviewed the template_index user talk namespace multi-level template and it shows you gave me a level 2 warning, I saw the level 1 warning and that's what you were supposed to give me, but you went straight to a level 2 warning so you could've done the level 1. That's really all you had to do. I think you HAVE to give me level 1 first because that was the first time I did it. I would've saw the warning and went on with my day but you went aggressive with level 2. Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- @General Ization: But it's kind of hurtful to see someone telling me I'm vandalism and I'm being unconstructive. Do you see where I'm coming from? Mwiqdoh (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mwiqdoh: I think I've already addressed that just above. No other editor here is a mind reader, and we don't know your intent when we see edits that do not comply with our policies. General Ization Talk 02:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @General Ization: "We don't know your intent" WP:AGF Mwiqdoh (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mwiqdoh: OK, are you genuinely unclear on what I've asked you to do and why? I appreciate your concern, but I do have other tasks to perform tonight. The original messages were courteous and asked you to not engage in a certain behavior. I'm sorry, but I cannot be responsible for whatever subtext you are reading into them about assumptions of bad faith. General Ization Talk 02:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @General Ization: I made an not allowed (but not harmful) edit and you give me caution stating it is unconstructive, considered vandalism, and not really in a nice manner. If you give the same caution to every single person (from sockpuppetry, vandalism, and more to me) and you don't know my intent (and you see I am not purposefully vandalising) then you can quickly give me a short message that I'm not supposed to do that (e.g. Please didn't edit other people's messages in talk pages, it isn't allowed. Thanks for your understanding. How long does that take you to type?). If you don't know someone's intent you can assume good faith. I did something wrong, sorry but just please be more polite about it. If that's your copy and paste message please consider making it in a nicer tone. thanks for your understanding Mwiqdoh (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.