This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hi, GW, it seems we edit-conflicted over varying ways to nominate that article for deletion. I'm not really sure it qualifies for G3 (to my eternal regret), but I'm happy to restore the tag for you to get another admin's opinion, or however else you think we should handle it. Cheers, Writ Keeper⚇♔16:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, AfD is fine also. I tagged it rather than deleting it directly since I wanted a second opinion over whether G3 applied, so I'll consider yours to be that second opinion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also put Draft:Aim trainer, it's impossible to find any other good sources other than the 2 that already exist in the article. (Kind of strange that those 2 aren't enough, but you are the boss, so...) --Pek (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Came upon some errant talk page archives. Please take a look at Talk:Laura Loomer, because, well it has 2 archive pages Talk:Laura Loomer/Archive 1 and then, Talk:Laura Loomer/Archive 7. The reason I am posting about it here is that, ummmm....actually, it was a 2020 edit of yours that caused it, because that introduced the code of "counter=7". I have no idea how to fix this... Besides the Archive 1 & 7 issue, Archive 1 is the only page listed in the talk page header... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe Archive 7 can just be re-named as Archive 2 and the "counter=" in the coding either just deleted or changed to 2? but not sure. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh THANK YOU for the fixes. Yeah, I do that all the time - lift code from one article and sometime have forgotten to change something internal. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently reading your Web3 blog (which is great, by the way) and it got me to wondering if there have been any newsworthy attempts to separate people from their money by trying to hack together AI and blockchain technology. It seems almost inevitable, but I haven’t seen any examples in the news yet. 28bytes (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. There are a ton of projects that claim to incorporate AI in some way, most of them pretty harebrained. I'm not sure if many of them have hit the "newsworthy" level yet. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this while reading the latest gong show at Talk:Palmer Report, but for obvious reasons it seems more appropriate to bring the issue up somewhere that isn't an active battlefield.
What the hell is our deal with "fake news websites"? If you look at Category:Fake news websites, you'll see that none of them are really fake news websites. Occupy Democrats, for example, is a Facebook meme page that says outrageous things -- since it is idiotic clickbait, these things are often false, but it's not really a "fake news website". I don't think there is any indication that they are going out of their way to publish false things, or that it's their main goal, just that they are lazy and don't care much about whether things are true. Similarly, OpIndia does not seem like a fake news site: it's a real news site, just a very shitty one that does not have any decent fact-checking.
Per our own article, fake news websites "deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news". That is, they are completely bogus, and the people running them are aware of this, and they exist for the main reason of getting people to believe false things. It really doesn't seem to me like a simple lack of fact-checking fits the bill: certainly it causes the website to be lousy, partisan, low-quality, unusable as a news source -- but not fake.
What do you think of this? Is it worth an RfC or a larger discussion, or am I just being a pedantic chode?
By the way, check the HTML note for an extra-hot take. jp×g11:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, OpIndia does not seem like a fake news site: it's a real news site, just a very shitty one that does not have any decent fact-checking. - You are wrong. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: I think part of the issue may just be the weirdness of the term "fake news". When I hear it, I think of Trump talking about CNN or whichever center/left outlet has caught his ire at the moment, not of a sober term used to describe the actual issue of mis/disinformation disguised as accurate reporting. But for better or for worse, it has entered the common lexicon, and I think part of the problem is that its mainstream usage still runs the gamut of meanings, from the Trumpian "news I don't like/agree with" to "active and intentional disinformation".
I do think that if we consider "fake news website" to refer to ostensibly "news" websites with a reputation for regularly publishing falsehoods in order to push an agenda, the category makes sense. InfoWars, Project Veritas, OpIndia, Natural News, LifeSiteNews,[a]The Epoch Times, and The Gateway Pundit are all outlets I'm relatively familiar with from that category, and the term certainly seems to suit them. If the term is defined to mean outlets that knowingly, intentionally publish falsehoods, it narrows a bit, and I think some of the sites included in the category could be questioned. Project Veritas and InfoWars seem to knowingly, intentionally publish and repeat falsehoods, for example, whereas some of the others could plausibly argue that they are just particularly gullible when it comes to regurgitating falsehoods that match their prior positions. Whether that's a distinction that should be made in the category is certainly an interesting question.
There is, of course, an issue where the line can blur around news satire. A lot of The Onion-esque sites publish headlines that could easily be mistaken for real news (and regularly are), and to varying extents rely on the "satire" label as a shield when outrageous stories are mistaken for fact (for example, as discussed The Babylon Bee#Mistaken for factual reporting). However, I'm not sure any of these such sites are included in the fake news category at the moment.
As for your hot take, I don't really think that's likely. Some of these outlets meet that descriptor, sure, but I can think of others that are much more of a thorn in our collective sides that aren't categorized here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^Disclosure: I created and wrote much of this article
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
hello, let me guess you might not be the most familiar with indian soccer topic, but to see how messed things got, check pages i listed which all show opposite stadium capacity of the one you protected. and please solution, does a wrong number need to be added to them, or you fix as it used to be at stadium article;
No, it is up to you to provide the sources. Once you've found them, you can leave a comment on the talk page of the article in question if you're not able to edit it directly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dulqueer Salmaan
Hi, it is regarding the repeated vandalism at Dulqueer Salmaan article. Yesterday, you AC protected it after a request at RPP, but now it is being attacked by EC users. One of them is a newbie user that recently got 'promoted' [2], while another one seems to be an older problem user [3]. I've requested them to discuss the matter here. Is EC protection an option? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd let you know that the category, Category:Incel-related violence was retitled, through CFD speedy renames, to Category:Misogynist terrorism. I'm not sure if this will affect anything related to the matter but since you edit articles on this subject, I thought I'd alert you to the change.
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement 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 until the discussion has finished.
rootsmusic (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
For reverting the harassing sock. Can you delete the talk page of the other already blocked sock he created today? I don't like having my username on any of those sock attack talk pages. oknazevad (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely, I had zero edit conflicts while editing Ellie Moon. And I was so focussed on going through the sources that I didn't even notice I had notifications. I'm so OCD. Thanks for checking in there, appreciate the effort. Valereee (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit on Owen Jones' page noting his declaration of his ADHD diagnosis, citing no source -- I'm confused why his own Twitter's not considered a reliable source there? WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WorthPoke2: "In June 2023, Jones announced he had been diagnosed with ADHD" is adequately sourced and can be sourced to his Twitter as a neutral factual claim per WP:ABOUTSELF. "for which he received accusations of misogyny on Twitter" is not sourced, and would need a strong secondary WP:RS to warrant inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Tesla Autopilot does not describe the Autopilot available in UK and Europe, which might be misleading. That might deserve a localization tag in the page?
Hopefully, I have found two appropriate sources which describe this autopilot feature. I understand that the added text was too long. Might be some words could have been removed? or some sentences?
The issue is that you removed the edit:
→Full Self-Driving: == UK and Europe == Tags: Reverted Disambiguation links added
By removing it, those sources (URL) are no more available! So it is no more possible to update it keeping the text sourced and verifiable.
See the message that I left on your talk page. It's not that the text was too long, it's that it was copied verbatim from other sources. The message here explains in more detail. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have plenty of time to read so long non-specific texts. You removed the text, I assume you should know why. The specific issue with one of the sources was related to a quote. As far as I know it is not forbidden to perform a quote, but I understand that the quote was too long.
The issue I described is the fact that sources have been lost.
Brief quotations are acceptable, but copying multiple paragraphs that could easily be paraphrased is not. See MOS:QUOTE. The sources added in the edit were:
While I may understand your concern, I am not sure that paraphrasing might be acceptable. May paraphrasing be considered as plagiarism and plagiarism considered as counterfeiting? I am not a specialist of European, French and other national laws, but I assume it is possible French law/jurisprudence has its (own) view on such topic.
May such topic be a question of quantity?
Can one only single/unique way to proof there is no counterfeiting be to demonstrate that it is not possible that the author of the paraphrase knows the existence of the text he gives as reference?
How can be solved contradicting concerns?
Too much questions without answer.
So I just do what I am told to do. Wikipedia advertising just says edit, so I do; Wikipedia just says to paraphrase, so do I.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
(talk page watcher) I agree completely. Random editors can't go around asking random strangers (in ALL CAPS!) to do the lifting on a subject of their interest. I see, by the way, that in the intervening ten days, the editor who offered to "give all the information" has added nothing to the draft. BD2412T04:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
Considering Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, the recent addition to the article on the Great Mosque of Gaza is premature and lacks detail. We don’t yet have concrete details around the involvement of the mosque in the ongoing war, which is not mentioned. There should be a mention of the war, as there is mention of every other war in which the structure (originally a church) was destroyed, and it provides necessary context for a researcher’s understanding of this topic. Friendly Fix (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belal Jadallah 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Molly! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Hope it's not too cold up in Boston. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for GorillaWarfare, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old. CHEERS!
Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old. CHEERS!
Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.
(Sent: 22:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC))
Women in Red January 2024
Women in Red| January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296
At my previous appeal I was advised to draft my appeal which is at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal and show it to at least 1 experienced user, as you commented on several of the previous discussions I'm wondering what you think of the draft and if you have any advice, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not GS and have not actually read your draft appeal. I will note I'm glad you're taking the recommendation previous arbcoms have offered you. Speaking only for myself, we have two complex matters before us at ARCA. I would encourage you @Crouch, Swale to consider waiting rather than filing as soon as you're eligible so that everyone can give this the proper consideration it deserves. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Both the GiantSnowman and Antisemitism in Poland cases were closed earlier today. There is now a case about Beeblebrox. Do you think its a good idea to start my appeal? If yes do you have any suggestions about my appeal before I file it? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timing is fine. I have no substantive comments about your appeal because I haven't read it. Since none has been forthcoming from GW, I'd ecnourage you to see if there was someone else who would be willing to give it to you not because you have to but to increase the odds that you're successful. Perhaps leave a message for Worm That Turned and send him an email? He's mostly inactive but my experience is he checks his email every few days still. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: WTT has replied saying he's not on Arbcom any more. Regarding the instructions at Special:Diff/1133851301 (1) I have drafted a plan on what I'm planning to do and have not had any articles ending up deleted or draftified/CSD/PROD/AFD, (2) draft the appeal and show it to several experienced editors which I have done, part of that is this discussion, (3) I have considered the feedback I have been given and am asking for anymore here, (4) this appeal will if it follows the first 3 points remove the restrictions so I won't need to have any more motions. Do you have any more advice/suggestions before I file? Is it in the best interest for the project to remove my restrictions? Yes, despite the fact there have been concerns in the past my track record since 2018 has been good, is it in my best interest to have the restrictions removed? Yes, I think I have demonstrated that I'm unlikely to have any significant problems with my work here in 2024 even though that was different in 2010. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Can I get some advice on how to handle the talk page at the Babylon Bee?
It's a bit discouraging to have an admin come through and just wholesale take out large sections of text because he doesn't personally like some sources, even if they aren't deprecated anywhere.
But of course he is an admin so I'm worried any objection will result in me being punished or steamrolled.
How should I address this? It feels like he has a free pass on consensus and source standards and gets to veto any discussion he wants. Am I reading this right? It kinda seems like a long term start he has used on other pages as well.
@Squatch347: I wouldn't worry regarding the admin part — per WP:INVOLVED, admins are not supposed to take administrative actions in relation to those they've disagreed with on editing matters. David Gerard is not going to block you or otherwise "punish" you for disagreeing with him.
Regarding the removals discussed and implemented by Aquillon and Gerard, I have to say they do seem reasonable to me. A shorter, high-quality article is often preferable to a longer one that relies on MREL or unreliable sources, and a lot of the claims that were removed were frankly pretty trivial. I don't think readers are going to suffer terribly for not knowing that Dillon has said he wanted to make "comedy that wasn't cheesy", for example — it's really just a trivial sentence. The actual changes to the content of the article were fairly minimal, and many of the removals were simply removing unreliable or questionably reliable sources that were supporting statements already cited to higher-quality sources, without making any changes to the article text.
If you think any of the sources that were removed should be considered reliable sources, you're certainly free to make that point, either on the article talk page or at an outside venue like WP:RSN. However, "it's not deprecated" is not a strong argument that a source is reliable, nor is "it's not listed at WP:RSP". Instead, you should make arguments based in WP:RS for how a source is a reliable source, seeking outside/uninvolved input from RSN if necessary. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, phew. I appreciate the guidance and advice. I'll take a fresh look at it and approach it again maybe without that concern. I'll also take your approach on defending sources in that manner. Do you know if there are any other essays on how to approach source evaluation from a wiki perspective? I ask because source evaluation is a large part of what I do and wiki seems to approach it from a very different framework than, say the Intel community, or Historians. I'm curious if there is additional guidance on the methodology for approach.
Hi Molly! I see you reverted a vandalism introduced by a half-illiterate, infantile troll, user 167.94.114.171. He has tried it with three different articles connected to Israel/Palestine, wasting people's time. Here it is. Would you mind taking the necessary steps to have him blocked? Thank you, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Molly. I just watched your YouTube video and found it warm, welcoming, and informative. I'm sure many newbies would benefit from it. Loved seeing you too. You are the real deal. Your heart and mind are in the right place. The world is a much better place because of you, so keep up the good work. You may want to promote the video on your user page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. It's fantastic to come across new editors inspired to join by your video!
Thanks for uploading File:Ray Mentzer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
The second edit was unintentional, as I thought I’d done something wrong and it simply hadn’t updated.
I do not know how to add the citation the information regarding his arrest came from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and is listed on a local page which displays local arrests.
if you can tell me how to add the citation, I will do so.
Please see WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I was pleasantly surprised to see your name popping up in my feed for yesterday's episode of Better Offline, I really enjoyed listening to it! Was great to hear somebody talking on a public platform about how Wikipedia works and why it's so important. I particularly enjoyed the discussion towards the end about the rise of AI and the 'enshitification' of the internet, and why that has made maintaining Wikipedia is so important in this context. When I started editing a few years ago, I had similar thoughts about the oligopolisation of the internet by big social media companies, but now with AI and the dead internet theory, having a community-based source of reliable information is all the more vital.
I do hope this leads to more people contributing to the platform, as Ed Zitron pleaded for at the end; a recent feature by The Guardian succeeded in bringing at least one or two new people into the Women in Red project, so I'm really pleased to see folk actively promoting more people getting involved. Anyway, I digress. Thank you so much for doing this podcast episode, I really appreciated it. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bounced onto here to say thanks as well, I parasocially knew you before EdZ, but was happy to see your name pop up. tedder (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page made no credible claim of notability and lacked any references. It was created by a user whose only other contributions have been vandalism and apparently trying to game autopatrolled. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article had just been created (by a very new user) and it didn't appear to be outright vandalism, why not let it sit for at least an hour (or send to draft) to see if the editor improves it? A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple hits for the lenses. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it rather than moved it to draft per WP:DRAFTIFY. However, since you seem interested in working on it, I've draftified it. You're right that it's a product — that's my mistake, I misread it to be the name of the company. Best of luck with the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Mostly, I was just curious about your decision as I had saw it pop up during a page review, and I went in to copy edit and format, then it had been deleted before I could publish, which was surprising. At NPP, we have a guideline to wait at least an hour to recommend deletion and/or draftify unless there are serious content concerns to avoid being bitey. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recreating an article that you deleted in 2023
Hi. Is it okay if I recreate draft article (about fever dreams), that was deleted by you in 2023? This time I have better sources. (User Masem advised me to ask this question from the admin who deleted the article.) --Pek (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend drafting it first, and going through WP:AFC. I'm concerned that you don't seem to have a much better grasp of the sources needed for new articles (a concern I see is shared by some others, e.g. User talk:Pek#New articles and sourcing), and especially with topics that brush up against WP:MEDRS I think it would be best if there was a second set of eyes on the article before it went to mainspace. If another editor reviews it and finds it acceptable, I certainly have no qualms with the page being recreated at that point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Drmies has already left you some feedback, which is pretty much what I would have said. I have to say I'm disappointed to see that, although you've swapped out a few sources, the article is largely the same poor quality as your previous attempt. I'm really not sure where the disconnect is here, but can you not see the vast difference between the types of sources you've used in this draft and the types of sources used in high quality medical articles like, say, Oxygen toxicity?
Popsci sources like Discover's "Bizarre Fever Dreams Are Common, But Science Hasn't Figured Out Why", or sources from mattress companies, are not WP:MEDRS — and the latter are probably not even plain WP:RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red May 2024
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Happily. Wikipedia must adhere to a neutral point of view, and editorializing a person's tweet as "celebrat[ing] news of the indiscriminate killings" based on the tweet itself (WP:OR) and an op-ed in an unreliable source falls far short of NPOV, not to mention WP:BLP sourcing requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not edit the contribution so it fits within NPOV? I think it's hardly OR that the tweet was made and picked up in the press by more than one source.[1] As the qoute states, in response to his tweet the UK governments antisemitism offered his own advice. The author of the tweet has not distanced himself from it either - quite the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.63.111 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the tweet itself is not a source, nor are the hundreds of tweets since, and neither is any mentioning of the tweet in the press, neither an op-Ed, not straight forward report with qoutes from UK political figures such as Lord Mann responding to the tweet? The understanding of the SUN being a non-RS is to do with unreliable reporting of events as to whether they occured, but that tweet occured. It's in the public domain, on the internet archive. Anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world can view it. How can this not be added to the article? 201.174.63.111 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here: the inclusion of the tweet in the article, and then — if included — how the tweet is described. We should first tackle whether the tweet should be included. In order to justify including it, you need a reliable source, or preferably several, to support that it's noteworthy enough to include in encyclopedia article about the organization. If the mere existence of a tweet was enough to justify inclusion, as you note, there would be hundreds of them in any article about a subject with a Twitter account (or, in this case, many hundreds of tweets in articles about organizations that have employees who tweet). So far you have not been able to come up with any reliable sources. The Sun is so unreliable it has been deprecated from being used at all. If you would like to argue about that, take it to WP:RSN, but in the meantime you'll need better sourcing.
Please recall that people tweet all the time, and political figures respond to tweets all the time. Wikipedia is not a repository for documenting every Twitter spat that's ever happened; it's for describing subjects in an encyclopedic fashion. If there is substantial reliable coverage of a tweet, it can potentially be included, but I'm not seeing that here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand? Without getting into a debate of whether The Sun is a generally a RS, I think you need to answer some specific questions in relation to this article: Did The Sun invent that a) the tweet occured b) the tweet's contents c) that Pawel Wargen was its author d) that Pawel Wargen is Progressive International's coordinator of its secretariat e) that Lord Mann as the government's antisemtism adivsor responded with a qoute in the article f) that Progressive International was organising a fringe event at the Labour Party conference?
Pawel Wargan is the coordinator of the organisation's secretariat, I'd say that would lead it to meet notability guidelines. I think any other conclusion would be almost perverse, but that's me. 201.174.63.111 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether the tweet happened, it's a question of if it's noteworthy enough to include.
If merely being the coordinator of the organization's secretariat is sufficient for tweets to be included in the article, then by my count, we would need to get to work including 17,482 tweets in this article, including ones like "It makes more sense to eat ice cream in the winter because it doesn't melt."
But that's ridiculous, of course — we only include tweets if they are particularly noteworthy, and in this case, if they are so noteworthy that they should be included in an article about an organization (rather than one about the person who sent the tweets). How do we establish noteworthiness? Coverage in secondary, reliable sources — which, at least at this time, does not seem to exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it meets notability criteria because unlike the tweet you posted, in I'm sorry, but that not at all that convincing and rather absurd ad absurdum, it is a) from when the author took on his role and not a decade prior b) concerns his political views, in so far as he is part of a political movement c) was printed in the UK press, as opposed to any of the other 17,000 tweets, in a daily paper with a daily circulation in the millions d) provoked reactions from the UK government's antisemitism spokespersons and Chair of Jewish Labour as reported in said article e) was then picked up in another daily article f) is highly relevant to that organization's activities and viewpoints as listed in point 8 of their Gaza resolution on their website: (8) Reject the false equivalence of colonizer and colonized, recognize that the violence of the oppressed is a response to the original condition of their oppression, and uphold the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to resist, enshrined in UN Resolution 2625, as "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means”;[2]
You haven't really convinced me that the tweet shouldn't be referenced. Quite the opposite. The more I look into it, the more convinced I am it should be there. I also see the article somehow fails to mention that the Bernie Sanders Institute never joined the organization once it was up and running for fairly obvious reasons - the tweet author's views being amongst them (the Secretariat is described itself on its own website as the "coordinating body of the Progressive International." So, I imagine its general coordinator has quite a big role, not dissimilar to the general-secretary of the party.)
Lastly, I would say, not including the content in some form is not a good look for the encyclopedia, given how it has been perceived to have behaved on this issue, amongst segments of the world's Jewish population. It comes across as suppression.[3] I don't think this should be dismissed. 201.174.224.174 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly welcome to argue at WP:RSN that The Sun (again, a deprecated source) is a sufficient source to include the tweet if you are so convinced that this is my error and not yours, but as I've already explained at length, I don't think you will have much success.
I understand that you feel the tweet is significant and noteworthy, but Wikipedia policy requires that Wikipedia content reflect the prominence of material in secondary reliable sources. As of yet, I have not seen a single secondary reliable source (The Sun excluded for aforementioned reasons) that mentions it, much less describes it as significant to the degree that it should be included in an encyclopedia article about the organization as a whole. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Same as source 149: "Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales" written in "Relationship between ethnicity and status among the Xiongnu" section
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
I just wanted to thank you for including your pronouns in your signature. I've wanted to include mine, but I wasn't sure if that'd be welcome because I haven't seen anyone else do so.
Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you because it means a lot to me.
Given your interest in TESCREAL, I suppose you might also be interested in this topic of existential risk studies, which I have decided to make. If you do have an interest to take a look, it is in my [drafts]. I have also submitted the article to review, a process which I have zero experience with. Feel free to give any advice or proposition of change.
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Some crappy crypto Whatsapp scam group - interested?
This is nothing to do with Wikipedia but this is an easy way to contact you... I keep getting added to a crappy Whatsapp crypto scam group of some kind or another, led by a "Professor Martin" (whose image reverse searches to all sorts of fruity things). The amount of effor they're putting in is quite entertaining. Have you got a burner number you'd like me to suggest they add to it or have you got better things to do? Or maybe suggestions for others who may be more interested (who are welcome to reply to this thread as well as presumably there are lots of lurkers on this page - just give me a number, preferably a UK one but scammers are stupid so probably anything will do and the name of persona and I will pass it on to them) :) - Have reported it many times to WhatsApp but it keeps getting resurrected... 2A02:8011:EB50:0:4DF5:3A4A:51B:8AB1 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
Could you please stop reverting my changes to the page? The website had some nazi posters at the beginning of it over 7 years ago, since then it became fully compliant and still describing it as a meeting point for nazi groups is slandering the platform. Please read this Ofcom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyron1987 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Face to Face vs Dropkick Murphys.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Face to Face vs Dropkick Murphys.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
@BennyAndTheJets1024: You do need a citation, particularly given the sentence you added implied that this is a new or unusual phenomenon — something that must be stated in a third-party, reliable source and not merely observed by a given Wikipedia editor. Please see WP:NOR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source says that fans chanted his name at one stadium, not that his name is chanted "also almost anywhere the Lions [go]." Furthermore, you need to cite the source in the article edit, not just on user talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can do it. Help:Referencing for beginners is a good intro. YouTube and Tiktok will probably not be usable (see WP:UGC), nor is it sufficient to simply link a video where the cheers are audible. If it is such a unique phenomenon that it should be mentioned on Wikipedia, there should be no trouble in finding reliable, third-party sources commenting on the widespread cheering; if those don't exist, it is probably not something that ought to be mentioned on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good. I moved it from the 2021 section to the 2024 section, since the article was written in 2024. I've also fixed the citation format and some grammar issues; see this edit to see what I changed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
