This is an archive of past discussions with User:Insertcleverphrasehere. 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.
Thanks for the invite; I consider it a great honor to have been asked, but I'm a bear of very little brain and totally daunted. And no, you didn't inadvertently plant the invite in an Archive. I created the Archive after giving the job long consideration and shuddering at the immensity. Sorry.
I've been around a long while, but I find myself just dealing with vandalism on my watch list, my online time being limited. I could certainly do some afc reviewing, but don't have the knack yet. I found the flow chart on your user page very helpful. Could you do me a favor, or find someone who has the time to mentor me up? I just performed the flow chart on George Boris Townsend and moved it from draft space, tagging appropriately and eliminating certain tags specific to being a sandbox creation and an afc submission. I did the last bit manually. Could you point out what I could have done better? In addition I'd like to congratulate the page creator, and I'm sure there's an automated way of doing that correctly. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think your review of George Boris Townsend was quite good. I'll point out that the flowchart on my user page is mean to be used for New Page Patrol Reviewing, and contains some stuff that is not appropriate for AfC; in particular many of the CSD criteria do not apply to drafts (G series still apply but A series do not). The flowchart could still be used for AfC I suppose, but all the A series CSD outcomes as well as Redirect/PROD/BLPROD/AfD/Draftify on the chart would just be declines. You are also a good candidate for New page reviewer rights too. So if you want to help out over at NPP as well, you can apply for the user-right over at WP:PERM/NPR.
Also, if you are going to be reviewing AfC submissions, you should request to be added to the participants page. You can find a lot of info about reviewing AfC HERE. This allows you access to the AFCH toolset, which much simplifies the process of reviewing AfC drafts. The 'automated way of doing that' is part of the AFCH toolset. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)00:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Hello, and a very good evening to you. Would you mind, awfully, not doing this again. If you do, I will have to bring it to the attention of the site administrators. Thanks very much and have a wonderful New Year! CassiantoTalk22:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for the invitations. I will first study the regulations, etc. and then start. Unfortunately this will take some extra time as this is the busiest time of the year for me. Again, thanks and Happy New Year to you. Denisarona (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Entirely uncalled edit/deletion
2018 in stand-up comedy
It was January 1st to a yearly list page. It absolutely doesn't need any more entries than one at that point. People don't contribute as much if they'd have to make a whole new page so someone has to get the page going. Wikipedia has tons of sports pages for example that start with one event/match/result and they don't get deleted, this shouldn't either when it's clearly a continuation to a set of yearly pages. ShadessKB (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted, it was simply redirected until additional content was added. There was a clear notice saying that there was no prejudice for creating into an article. Single item lists like this one run the risk of seeming promotional in a way that a single item list for sports would not (and I actually haven't seen many of those, and have seen a few get deleted). In any case, the article now has a few entries so there is no longer a problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
backlog chart
Hi. I noticed you created an independent page Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart to stop cluttering warchlists. But I think, the chart should be updated once in loosely 24 hours. I mean, the pages are reviewed and created throughout the day/24 hours. It is not exactly "balanced" no matter when we take the "reading", if we are taking it for multiple times. But if we do it at one particular time, then I think it would be beneficial for analysis, and for keeping it updated as well. It would be like, "in last 24 hours ABC articles were created, and XYZ articles were deleted. In the 24 hours before that, XYZ articles were reviewed. What I am trying to say is, you/we should decide one particular time (say your midnight, or enwiki's midnight), and then we should update it around midnight every night. But it is just an opinion from me. :) Please do it the way you see fit. :) —usernamekiran(talk)14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Usernamekiran. I try to update it when I can, and get a reading as close to 12 noon UTC (3AM where I am though), as this is the time that I use from Nettrom's dataset to fill it in for back dates. Nettrom's dataset is always a bit out of date though, so I try to put in data from the last few days as it comes in on the New Page Feed and then update it later to the 12 noon UTC data points from his dataset. If that makes sense. I probably shouldn't bother, and just update it from Nettrom's a few days late, but it's fun recording the progress and I am not usually far off anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)15:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
ok thats confusing lol. I thought you simply take the reading from special:newpagesfeed and then input it in the chart. —usernamekiran(talk)19:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment mod
Yeah on 2nd look I can see how that could have been accidental, and in hindsight I should have worded the editsum differently. Cheers. ―Mandruss☎19:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't blame you. The coincidental way that the text got copied over did look kind of like I was modifying his comment. It must have happened while I was copying his username to my clipboard, or copying the "three strikes and your out" bit, though I still can't for the life of me figure out how. So strange, but thanks for catching it. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)19:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Waitangi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you look at this again? The redirect to the DAB is back, and as far as I can tell the original page is gone. Meters (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup. I would have just reverted myself but I saw your three-way work and I wasn't sure if soemthing else needed doing again. Meters (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Na he won't be able to move the pages again. You can only move over a redirect once, after that you need to do a round robin with the page-mover userright. From now on normal reverts will be all that is needed. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for drawing my attention to New Page Reviewing. I am inclined to apply for this group. However, at the moment I am tied down to getting ready for a holiday trip, planned long ago. I will get back to you in the second week of January. As regards Articles for Creation Reviewing, I don’t want to get involved in too many things at the same time. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I have working on new page reviewing for the last few days. Please feel free to point out shortcomings you may notice. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In general, good work. Note that dab pages with only one target should just redirect to the one topic. I would also recommend that you install WP:RATER as it is a useful tool for adding WikiProjects to new pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Treaty of Waitangi suggestion
I hope you will consider my suggestion (which you may nt have read yet) to consolidate the effects/legal standing/claims for redress section into a single section about the role of the treaty in NZ public life where the developments can be described chronologically in a way that gives the full context for the developments from the "nullity"-interpretation to the explicit recognition the treaty has to day. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·09:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, good, just wasn't sure if yo had seen it. I think a chronological presentation may go a long way to avoid the problem Te Karere pointed out with giving undue weight to outdated views.·maunus · snunɐɯ·09:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,
Please note that I have removed your statement as it contained assertions about other editors' behaviour without any evidence. You can find your statement in the page history and please do feel free to re-add it with links to diffs which evidence what you say. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
CEISAL article in English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia
Dear Insertcleverphrasehere or any other else editor in Wikipedia:
CEISAL is an international research network about Latin American Studies. As it is international, I thought it was quite useful to create the article in english. As a result of your template message, I have seen the same article in Spanish Wikipedia, but with a different name: Consejo Europeo de Investigaciones Sociales de América Latina. As it is quite long, usually we call it CEISAL. I don´t know if we should change the name of the article unifying both .
There are numerous references in the academic press and also in papers and publications about CEISAL. Honestly, I think that no more references are needed, as you can see in the Spanish version.
I can translate into English those paragraphs I did not know about the network, because in the article in Spanish there is much more information. But I would ask you please, after the effort, consider the possibility of removing the tag.
Oh, and congratulations with the fine work! The article is correctly listed as a GA now, it was apparently only the message to your talkpage that was botched.·maunus · snunɐɯ·08:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Haha I figured that it wasn't really meant to fail. Thanks a lot for all your help. As a last thing, I have actually been working on a rework of the "Treaty text, meaning and interpretation" section, per your last comment on the GA page (I didn't forget). I added a paragraph with some summary of the Maori version, and moved some stuff around. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)08:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, you can certainly continue working on the article - the latter sections particularly can still be expanded and improved. But it meets the criteria now, so I passed it, even if I could still think of further improvements. I think the review process did make for a better article, and that is always my goal with reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ·08:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Advice: don't bother arguing about copyediting with Eric. He is usually right, and when he is not he is an asshole about it so you'll regret discussing it anyway.·maunus · snunɐɯ·10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wainui Falls you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jo-Jo Eumerus -- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Sitush, I restored the comment. I was refactoring an edit conflict and I thought it was just the one word change by Angus that needed to be kept (so I just added it to my edit), but there was another edit by Drmies in between that I missed. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed. I left a note at Coffee's talk. I'd spent much of my editing the last week defending him against a nonstop barrage of abuse, and now I find myself dishing some out (though as gently as I could, mind). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
List of unsolved problems in physics
Hi, I made a "mistake" of editing wikipedia again. :/ If you agree with my point of view (which, based on the evidence, I strongly believe to be correct), would you care to support me in the talk page and perhaps let know other interested people about this, so that they also could support these edits, if they wish? Only the discussion of today matters, because only today it became substantive (though opponents so far have not provided with any evidence (no links to sources) to their point of view). Many thanks in advance.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not know about that rule, I am sorry, but you are a person with free will, so no matter how my request was worded you still would be able to do as you please. So considering this, this rule seems a bit weird, beause it seems to encourage not to be honest about ones intentions (i.e. concealing your intentions, because it is quite natural for editors to look for help hoping that it would be in their favour). I wrote to you, because I remember that you were a reasonable editor who had common sense and who did care about the rules. I edited Unsolved problems in physics article adding there inertia, gravity, and double slit experiments. Someone reverted all these edits without any reasonable explanation. Most of the entries in this article do not have any sources, the rest has only one source. Seeing this I assumed that it is normal for this article to add entries like this, because this is a very specific article adding only questions and an internal link to an article about a physical phenomenon or a problem. Because of that I initially did not add sources (because I considered them to be in the internal wikipedia article about the phenomenon), and later on I added only one or two sources per each entry. I understand that this could have been of concern, but later on I added plenty of sources to inertia (6 sources), so it seems to me like there is no reason whatsoever not to add the edit about inertia, especially when my oponents have not quoted any sources at all to rebut my sources about inertia. Yet, it seems like they are just pushing their POV regardless of any evidence and rules. So I do not know, if it is worth to add sources for the other two edits at all, because unreasonable editors are ruining my efforts to improve wikipedia (I think that it is a gross negligence that these entries have not been added yet by anyone earlier, that prompted me to add these entries myself), which have been done, in the case of inertia, completelly by the book (6 reliable sources is more than enough). Please note, that the only thing I had to prove with the sources is that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics, because its cause, or origin, or source remains unknown. I quoted 6 sources which state exactly that. As a primary source of that statement could be considered Mach's research. I did not quote that reasearch, because it is from XIX century, but it is mentioned in other sources. Other sources show that various notable physicists were trying to find the source of inertia and they all in the introduction to their papers stated that the origin/cause/source of inertia has remained unknown, so the second paper on that subject was secondary source, third tertiary source and so on until the most recent paper from 2013. I added also a popular science paper about that from Science. Please note that it is irrelevant that each of these scientists invented his own hypothesis about the source of inertia, because I am not adding information about their hypothesis to the article (I am merely mentioning that they were working on the source of inertia, because it is already mentioned in the article about Inertia), what is important is that each of the 6 quoted sources repeat that the cause / source / origin of inertia remains unknown (no hypothesis have been confirmed by experiment, so they did not became theories), so each of these 6 added sources can be considered primary, secondary, tertiary and so on sources confirming that the cause of inertia is uknown, because each of these sources repeat the same statement since Mach's time (that the cause / source / origin of inertia remains unknown). If you would eventually have some spare time to look at this I would appreciate it (regardless of what would be your opinion). I even half-jokingly described what might be the probable reason of the resistance of the opponents in the discussion - you can read it if you want to smile a little bit, but please note that it is serious in the second half of that entry (after the quote of Schopenhauer). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I am still rather busy unfortunately, and don't really have the time to get up to speed on a discussion like this. I am also not overly familiar with the subject matter.
My advice dealing with other editors though: listen to others and try to understand their viewpoint, if you still believe they have misinterpreted something, try an angle that convinces them that they actually already agree with you, rather than trying to convince them that they are wrong (which almost never works). If you need to shift your point slightly, or qualify it to keep other editors happy, it is generally a good idea to do so. If you find yourself getting worked up over something, take a step back for a day or two, then come back and reassess the situation, others will likely have calmed down as well and everyone will be more receptive to work together. Remember that there is WP:NODEADLINE. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You said that there is WP:NODEADLINE, but as you can see here (that is an addendum to the earlier message where I suggested to administrators what they could focus on to improve wikipedia editing) the editor closed (without consulting this with anyone) an ongoing discussion. So would you be so kind and please clarify how it corresponds to WP:NODEADLINE and what can be done about this premature closure, probably done just to push that person POV without any evidence (that person has not provided a single evidence (source) in the discussion, while I provided 6 reliable sources primary and secondary regarding this question: 'What is the cause/source/origin of inertia?' in the List of unsolved problems in physics.). That editor closed entire thread where also gravity and double slit experiments are discussed. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Correction regarding the number of sources: I have just found 7th source where Haish, Puthoff and Rueda published together on the source of inertia: "Recent work implies that the ZPF may play an even more significant role as the source of inertia and gravitation of matter." Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:MjolnirPants, thanks for the message you left on Coffee's talk page "If you block Insertcleverphrasehere or Smeat...I will be the first to request you be desysopped by Arbcom" [1]. This of course relates to the big banner he slapped on the discussion of the April Fool's suggestion [2] where he publicly names and shames (or tries to) Insertcleverphrasehere and me - At this stage Insertcleverphrasehere and Smeat75 are becoming so disruptive to the reason for why we are here that they are both about to be blocked, or otherwise sanctioned for deliberately attempting to thwart a topic area conduct restriction (see WP:ARBAPDS and WP:BLPDS) (without pinging us) which seems to me a combination of a threat, bullying and casting aspersions. He says we are disrupting the five pillars of WP and deliberately attempting to do something that I don't even know what he is talking about - don't know what "WP:ARBAPDS" is and don't care. As far as I can recall in that discussion relating to the proposal, basically all I did is agree with the proposer Ritchie333 once, Davey2010 a couple of times and you,Insertcleverphrasehere once. I don't see why Coffee should be allowed to get away with that attack on us and am thinking of opening an ANI report about it, but then doing things like that is such a long process and sort of a negative way to spend your time, I thought I would ask what you two think. Appreciate any input.Smeat75 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, forget it, I see that while I was typing the above Coffee replied to MjolnirPants, said he wasn't going to block us and apologized, sort of, so I will not pursue it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond. Yeah, I wasn't sure why he singled you or Insertcleverphrasehere out. Hence why I posted that comment to Coffee's page; if he had gone forward with that and blocked you two, that would have been a serious overstep that didn't even address the root cause of the problem he had with that discussion. But he didn't go there, and that's what's important; results. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.01:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks again MjolnirPants, he seems to have heeded your words of wisdom and has gone on a break, so you benefited more than just Insertcleverphrasehere and me.Smeat75 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
On 6 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Waitangi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New Zealand's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi(pictured), barely escaped burning in a fire, was lost for decades, and then was found in a damp basement heavily water damaged and chewed by rodents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Waitangi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Treaty of Waitangi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wainui Falls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in Māori mythology, the severed tail of a taniwha which fell at the base of the Wainui Falls(pictured) is thought to be responsible for staining the rocks downstream reddish-brown with its blood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wainui Falls. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wainui Falls), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Over 9000!.png. 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).
Hi! I am writing with regard to the Natsu Dragneel article. There seems to be a misunderstanding since the section regarding the new creation of this article was posted on another user's talk page. I was the one who removed the redirect (the original article had been transformed into a redirect several years ago because it hadn't met the notability criteria) and created the new article basically from scratch, so I am the one responsible for what is written in it now. Furthermore, I saw you had mentioned that links to Amazon listings should not be used as references, but I had seen some used in other articles about fictional characters. So, are they not allowed or just not recommended? Nevertheless, could you tell me what sources would be considered completely reliable when it comes to merchandise related to fictional characters? Thank you. Regards, Flowerpiep (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as 'not allowed', but I wouldn't attribute any citations of fact to them (an amazon listing can claim anything it likes). Better sources should be used for verification that official toys/costumes exist, and unofficial toys/costumes shouldn't be referenced at all unless commented on by a reliable source in some other publication. All of this certainly limits the usefulness of sources like this. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Mass message sender granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "massmessage-sender" user right, allowing you to send messages to multiple users at once. A few important things to note:
Messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to be interested in the topic.
For regular mailings such as those for WikiProjects, localized events, or newsletters, users should be informed of how they can unsubscribe from future mailings.
The mass messaging tool should never be used for canvassing with the intention of influencing the outcome of discussions.
For more information, refer to the guidance for use. If you do not want mass message sender rights anymore, just let me or any other administrator know and we will remove it. Thank you and happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Upgrades to Curation tools
Personally the last thing I would have offered the WMF is for the community to do the work they are paid for. If that is going to be the future of Wikipedia, we may as well also all do BOGOF for the paid spammers too, and revert back to normal after ACTRIAL expires. Just my 2p. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem is politics. If you let them think for a moment that the community will do something for free, they will most certainly let you. That's the whole reason why we're already not getting any work out of them. I know these people personally - they will only do what they want to do and find interesting. They are not in the slightest bit interested in understanding what the stake holders want and need. The WMF is made up mainly of software engineers and lawyers, there is no one among them with any business acumen or sense of priorities. Its the main problem with all non-profits and NGOs. The money comes in without any performance driven effort. All they know is how to spend it, and it's mainly on salaries and junkets. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
When did Danny say that the Page curation tools fixes were not within the scope of the watchlist? I remember vaguely something about this from ages back but don't know where it was. I'd like nothing better than to come back at him about that, as he is just stringing us along. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)17:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed your PROD, but there isn't much point in a PROD when placed on an article created from a redirect where the redirect will be needed again, and converting back to a redirect is basically a de facto PROD. PRODs do not facilitate a discussion or consensus building, if you want a discussion, AfD is the correct place. We do have Structural engineer and Software engineer, so the topic is possible and presuming that the article is actively being worked on, it is probably best to leave it as it is for now. It does read a bit like an advert for Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers though, which is a concern. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Insertcleverphrasehere, just my thought, but I was wondering if you could post about NPR to WP:AN less frequently? To me it just doesn't seem entirely suitable. Anyway, thank you for the good work with everything. Alex Shih (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my rationale was that administrators make up over two thirds of all those with NPR rights, which is why I have been posting periodically there (the last message was in December). I'm not sure how much it helps anyway though, as I am pretty sure most people are ignoring the messages anyway (if the lack of any flurry of activity is anything to go by). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't help. It's just that NPR, like most minor rights, are automatically part of the Admin bundle. You need to run a script and find out just how many admins actually do any NPR. I think you'll be in for a rude awakening. You'll find me there of course, but my agenda is to monitor the process, not specifically help keep the backlog down. I did that once 5 years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have run that script actually. I went through it in excel a while back to see how many reviewers hadn't used the tools (it was very few), but I also noted who was an admin and who wasn't. From memory, about half to a third of all active reviewers are admins (mostly in the middle ranges- reviewing a few hundred or so). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)19:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... interesting, I wouldn't have though it would be that many. Just goes to reinforce my concerns that a lot of the rights holders might be hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I looked to see how many NPR rights holders had not used the tools at all in the last 6 months, and after going through about half the list I found very few examples (mainly people who had just been given the rights in the last few days/weeks). You can however find many, many examples of NPR rights holders that have only used the tools once or twice in the last 6 months (which can be seen in that Quarry link above), of those that reviewed the most, most are NPRs rather than admins, but once you get down to those who review a few hundred or so in a year (which accounts for about 50% of reviews), the number of admins goes up a lot. In any case I'll avoid AN for NPR stuff unless it is more relevant than "we need could use help", and go back to inviting individual users when I have time (not sure when that will be though). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd actually be more interested to see how many have done very little or no patrolling since we rolled out the user right in November 2016, but if you haven't got the data for that don't worry about it. After having been on of the regular processors of requests at PERM for years, even when AGF, some requests are quite obviously from hat collectors but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
See HERE for a list since November 2016. I am not sure how on the syntax so that it excludes admins, or so that it will include users in the log even when they have 0 reviews. Perhaps SoWhy has some pointers on the syntax needed? (I have seen him submit a number of complicated queries, and I am a novice at best). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but most of my complex queries build on stuff MusikAnimal has shown me. He's the real expert. If I had to venture a guess though, this should be what you need (I condensed your code a bit, considering that both log_action types can only appear in those log types, there was no need to check for them as well). HTH. Regards SoWhy19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I see the problem, user_groups has multiple entries for the same user if they are in multiple groups and thus it will list those admins who are also in other groups (like Kudpung). I'm not sure how to filter out users who appear once as "sysop" in the user_groups table. Maybe pinging MA will lead to him coming to your rescue ;-) Regards SoWhy20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That allows comparison so much better. Thanks! It looks like I overestimated the amount of admin participation a bit. Quite a bit less than 1/3, not insignificant though. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)23:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Only the fist 12 admins on the admin list have had any impact on the system and they are the admins who like me and DGG have mainly been patrolling in order to monitor the system rather than help with the backlog (which is, ideally, the way it should be). As I said, a significant number of rights hiolders appear to be hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I'd support a culling of the list of those that haven't used the tools more than a few times in say, six months. Want me to put together a template message and a list? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting culling the list. If it were to be necessary I would have made provision for it when I designed the user right, but I didn't consider the added bureaucracy of any strict importance. I'm really only making an observation - there are plenty of 'rights' holders of different kinds who don't use them, and I'm sure that there are many hat collectors among them, but we don't purge them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008
I only moved Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 out of the Draft name space as another editor stated that it was suitable to move out to Stub status. I have some number of years of experience of editing wikipedia and found your comment on my talk page passive aggressive - first of all thanking me creating something and then immediately stating that it was a pointless article to create.
Thank you for the advice - it seems I spend more time dealing with nitpicking than actual article improvement these days. If you feel that the article is useless then please nominate as an article for deletion.
Apologies mate, part of that is the template that the page curation tools creates, which can make negative comments seem passive aggressive I suppose. The bit I wrote was the negative bit, and I'll look into manually writing comments to users in the future when I have negative comments, thank you for pointing this out to me. I get what you are going for with this article; a place to start with room for further expansion, and the external links in the Infobox are somewhat useful I suppose. That being said, we should not be aiming for an unreferenced two sentence stub for law articles. Editors will of course disagree about when an article is suitable as a stub, and this one is right on that border IMO. It definitely looks unfinished in its current state. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me and for the apology. I completely agree that the article is very borderline (at best) - if another editor hadn't suggested moving it our draft name space I would have left it there. When I get a chance I will return to the article and expand it with more references. In future, I will trust my own judgement more and err on the side of caution. Thanks for your input. Kindest regards, Davidkinnen (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
WP DAB banner
Hi, there's no need to insert the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} banner on talk pages that otherwise have no content. It serves no purpose and some editors consider it a minor nuisance. You can see the template's documentation for links to past discussions. – Uanfala (talk)05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I see what you are pointing at, the template doc does say not to create talk pages with it. My rater is set to pop up automatically when there are no Wikiprojects on the page and I have been doing it mostly out of reflex. I won't add it in the future when there is a redlink to the talk page. Thanks for the info. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
