This is an archive of past discussions with User:MrClog. 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 a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
Hi MrClog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguilltalk19:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi MrClog. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate.
January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here.
March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now!
Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone!
Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.
Is there a reason you left the sanctions disclaimer on only a few people's pages about COVID-19 including mine? The disclaimer does say it doesn't necessarily mean that there is something wrong with a given person's edits, and mine were uncontroversial, but I'm finding the inconsistency troubling so I'm hoping you can elaborate on that. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823: I added the notice to the talk page of some users that seemed very engaged on pages about COVID-19. I did indeed not notify every user that has edited the page--after all, I'm not a bot. You are free to notify any other users if you'd like to with {{gs/alert|topic=covid}}. --MrClog (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a very alarming inconsistency, at least to me, when an editor sees that and does make them suspect that something is troubling others about their edits. If you're going to do it that way, I might be even more explicit than the usual disclaimer to reassure them. Just a friendly suggestion for next time. When I receive notices like that and see that basically everyone working on the topic has also, then I know I'm fine. If not, then that raises some concern (which I would have found surprising since my edits were not controversial). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823: I personally think that "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" is quite clear. In addition, none of the rules governing such alerts requires editors to notify every editor that has edited a page when they choose to warn one or more. Also, template documentation states: "Do not add additional text underneath the template", so I cannot add an extra disclaimer under the notification. If you believe the template should have additional disclaimers, I think you're best bet is discussing such a change at WP:AN or possibly contacting ArbCom. Best, MrClog (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it's a suggestion, but I recommend considering it. I think many other editors would be concerned if they saw that message and saw it distributed on people's pages in a very uneven way. That has not been the norm in my experience with discretionary sanctions, etc. since I have worked on many pages where I received such notices (but basically everyone did). You can simply add a brief separate talk page comment to reassure any such editors, it doesn't necessarily have to be in the template. I don't see a reason to discuss this with AN or ARBCOM, but I think it's important for you to know if you're going to leave these on people's talk pages. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823: I respect your opinion on this matter, but I prefer to stick with the standard practice of adding the notification without further text instead of adding an extra message reassuring people that their edits are OK. There are basically two reasons for this: (1) I would have to confirm that their edits are actually OK, which isn't easy when you aren't heavily involved with COVID-19 topics and thus may not be able to identify misinformation, and (2) apart from you, no editor that I notified with a DS or GS alert have showed concern about the message, even though I never mass add these notifications to many users at once.
Most editors do not mass add these alerts to many users at once either, as far as I'm aware. So unless there is community-wide consensus that, if one only notifies a few editors, an extra message is needed (which there isn't at the moment), I'll stick with the current practice. However, you are of course free to attempt to create consensus for such a change via WP:AN.
Even if once in a while an editor is worried about the alert, like you were, they can--just like you did--leave me a message and I'd glady reassure them. --MrClog (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Revert
Hi MrClog,
You reverted my edit, but the content and the link were right. I put it back. Your link is a year old so "out of time". Klaas `Z4␟` V17:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Klaas van Buiten: You made the original edit I reverted on 11 March. At that point, he had not yet been sentenced to life in prison. The article you added only said that the public prosecutor had requested the judge to sentence him to life in prison. His actual sentence was announced today, so now your edit is appropriate. However, your original edit on 11 March added factual inaccuracies because he was not yet sentenced at that point and my revert of said edit was therefore correct. --MrClog (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi McClog, It would be great to have some resolution regarding the drn for James Bradley with Deisenbe. Consensus building would be great. I didn't completely understand the purpose of writing something on your talk page. But I trust whatever you think we should do: pursue consensus building... or to let you know that we will request a third opinion. I am good with either.
It's actually really simple: When an article is about someone that wrote a slave narrative, should that narrative (a primary source) be the main source particularly for the period before he wrote the narrative, and ignore secondary sources like newspapers?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: It is true that the question is quite simple and I therefore think it is probably best to first request a third opinion. If there is still a dispute after a third editor weighed in, a request for comments (RfC) is probably good, especially because there seem to be only two possible answers to the question, which makes judging the consensus of the RfC relatively easy. If you do not want to file a RfC or if an RfC can't settle the issue, you can always file a new request a DRN. --MrClog (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleting every edit by me in an article and his reason:
Unsourced edit.
And you know what? Every My edit in that article was sourced! That's Just disrespect to labour. Ok for some of them he can be right buy he dleted EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY EDITS. If that will happen again I will report. Btw not Just for this Page. Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to random deleting and personel fights over article. Turkfromturkey (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Turkfromturkey: Are you talking about a revert I made? If so, could you please link it so I know which one you're talking about. In addition, please avoid threatening other Wikipedia editors in the future. --MrClog (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Turkfromturkey: Please note that you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. In addition, if you disagree with my revert, please do not rerevert me, instead, open a talk page discussion, as outlined in WP:BRD. --MrClog (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Btw I didn't threat you I think reporting isn't threat it Just sharing trouble. As I Said if I disrespect you please forgive. And you deleted not Wikipedia sourced ones too. And Wikipedia sourced ones are very basic ones. Turkfromturkey (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Threatening to report someone is still a threat. Let's continue the discussion about the sources on the article's talk page. --MrClog (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I still can't understand how can sharing trouble is a threat. However If you see reporting as A threat I apologise. And I made some disrespect in some Talks Like This isn't your junkyard! I apologise for things Like this. Turkfromturkey (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You are allowed to report people, that is not considered a threat. However, "If that will happen again I will report." is considered a threat, because you threaten to report me if I revert you again. --MrClog (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Turkfromturkey: I did not decline your draft. It is still submitted, as you can see at the bottom of the page. However, you must keep all previous "decline" messages on the draft page, even when you submit it again. --MrClog (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Turkfromturkey: Unfortunately, that is not how it works. As the boxes say: "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted." I understand it may not look good, but the rules require us to keep them on the page. --MrClog (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Damn autofix made delete devlete (which means to state in Turkish lol) and bad to baf. However I gotta go thank you for your attention. I am glad you discuss with me I thought you are a robot like editor but I was wrong. Thank you polite sir. You can delete if My edits if you think this is beter for Wikipedia or pass them to another people's attention. Thank you for everything. Turkfromturkey (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I've finished reading most of the paper and will finish the last bit tomorrow morning at breakfast. The user seems to have lost interest in labeling VPS "anti-fascist", but there is still room for improvement when it comes to sourcing the article. What are your plans when it comes to the article? (FYI, when you download a JSTOR paper, it includes your IP address, in case you didn't know. If you want to hide it, you might want to use a VPN when downloading a paper and distributing it to a fellow Wikipedian.) --MrClog (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Maria van Pallaes
The article is progressing quite well. At least ORES now gives it a reasonable rating. I've just come across this anniversary brochure from Utrechts Monumenten Fonds which seems to contain more detailed information although much of it duplicates what is already in the article. Let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. Then you are already aware of it but it seems to contain quite a few interesting details which could be included. I was wondering, for example, if it would not help to have a "background" section in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ipigott: You seem to have missed my last message, so just pinging you as a friendly reminder. I'm interested as to what you would include in such a section. --MrClog (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I thought you could perhaps provide some context by drawing on the sections of the brochure on Particuliere armenzorg and on the history of the van Pallaes family. Maybe also a word about hofjes, etc. If you like, you could also mention something about the rather special history of Utrecht and the development of the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities at the time. It's really up to you but I think a background section would facilitate understanding of the biography and thus raise the quality of the article. But it's entirely up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The List of ATK players has duplicated the actual content published at List of ATK (football club) players and has not done anythin' before that of. As the article is supposed to merge with it in order to avoid duplication. The authors simply pasted the materials and devoid the initial article List of ATK (football club) players usin' redirection and devastin' the actual published content.The appeal is urge deletion of this article and profound sustain of List of ATK (football club) players as it also include the article List of ATK (football club) Overseas players by the same author whereas List of ATK players is just a mere stub that doesn't enlist even more tham 3 players of the first season before the appeal of merger that one can access using the contributions and editin' history. List of ATK players is profound (upto 99.9%) duplication of the content of List of ATK (football club) players. Anyhow the author of List of ATK (football club) players managed to revive the article. The user is usin' his might immorally.
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
John Merrill (American Politician)
You closed my dispute resolution when I was pointing out how they have blatantly incorrect information on his wikipedia page. He was the first married SGA President of the University of Alabama and the date they have listed makes it look like he married late. GET WITH IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belledoll (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Belledoll, welcome to Wikipedia! Please note that the dispute resolution noticeboard is only for cases where prior talk page discussion has already taken place. Please try to resolve the issue at Talk:John Merrill (American politician); if that fails, you can open a new request for dispute resolution. You should read the "Do you need assistance?" section of the header at the noticeboard, which further explains the rules regarding dispute resolution. --MrClog (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, great to see your interest in clerking at username change venue. Feel free to ask if you need any help. Cheers! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
On a side note there are alot of unnecessary templates and most of them are so old that they doesn't make sense anymore. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@1997kB: As for the first two: noted. I saw the templates mentioned in the edit notice and saw them as fitting, but your comment makes sense (maybe they should be removed from the edit notice). As for the last one, I didn't see your message on the talk page. I added the regular clerk comment because it also explicitely tells the user to pick a new username -- which the bot does not. --MrClog (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Maria van Pallaes
On 14 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maria van Pallaes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maria van Pallaes allowed both Catholics and Protestants to live in her almshouses, which was unusual for the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maria van Pallaes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maria van Pallaes), 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.
I saw you have nominated a large amount of newer articles for CSD, since they were created by a banned user, however, they all pass notability, so I do not understand why they should all just be deleted because of who created them. This seems very counter productive, as if anyone else were to create them, there would be no issue. Could you explain why this makes them eligible? It just doesn't seem necessary to me, and is there a
way I could help fix them to save them from deletion?--Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Seacactus 13! If a blocked or banned user creates a new account to edit despite not being allowed to, we generally delete the articles s/he created under WP:G5. The reason we do so is quite simple: if we allow the articles to stay, it encourages users to continue to avoid their block/ban, because if they get caught, they get blocked again -- but their articles can stay. But we don't want blocked/banned editors to edit; they should appeal if necessary. I hope you understand why the articles are to be deleted. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have. Best, MrClog (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Materialscientist: It was listed at OPD. I ran the usual checks and I was suspicious that it may be an open proxy, but couldn't find definitive evidence. Then I used telnet on port 443 (common port used for OpenVPN), which allowed me to connect with the server. Because I at that point had strong suspicirons and to get definitive evidence, I scanned the IP with nmap, which found that port 443 and 500 were open and used by OpenVPN. MrClog (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Koresh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thank you for the thank you. I rolled back all the user's edits — well, there were only four — the convenient "rollback all" script did it in a second. :-) Bishonen | tålk11:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
Yeah, looking at the section above, I thought it might be. Please add it to the SPI if you think it worth the trouble. (It sometimes worries me that it's far simpler to create a sock than for us to take care of the bureaucracy around it.) Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC). Never mind, I see you already did. Bishonen | tålk11:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: I added it to the SPI just so we have it documented (took a few seconds, thanks to Twinkle). Should be obvious enough for a SPI-patrolling admin to confirm the behavioural link and tag the account. --MrClog (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@GB fan: I noticed, indeed. The page should exist only temporarily until it has been reviewed and possibly turned into an edit filter. I don't know what the fix would be (<nowiki> is not an option I think). MrClog (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
Hi there...well, I guess I was wrong. Someone deleted the 18 Straight Whiskeys article, so I'm not sure what my best proceeding is. Czar said I should just put it on Michael's author page as a blurb, but I had had it there for over two years before expanding it into its own standalone article. I really think it deserves to have its own page, but evidently I don't have enough source reference material? Also, I don't know how I did it, but somehow when I wrote the draft, I posted to the main space instead of it going for submission review, and I'm not sure how I did that. Can you help me? I'm thoroughly confused. Help? @MrClog:ARD (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ARynan: It seems like you've already send a message to Czar. I would suggest first discussing the decision with them; maybe you are able to agree on this issue after some discussion. If you cannot come to an agreement, you are allowed to dispute the redirect and blank, in which case Czar should reinstate the articles and nominate them at Articles for deletion, where people may come to the conclusion to keep the article or to redirect it anyways. --MrClog (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure what the best way was to go about it; I don't want to approach this as belligerent or pissy. @MrClog:ARD (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I sent Czar a message, but so far haven't heard from him as yet. And now someone called Bbot has orphaned the book cover image. This is NOT my week...*headdesk* @MrClog:ARD (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ARynan: That happened automatically (B-bot is a "bot", an account that acts automatically). It means that if the page is not restored within seven days, the image is deleted (because we cannot host a cover under a fair use claim if we don't use the picture in an article). However, even if that happens, the image can always be restored. --MrClog (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, how do I dispute the redirect of the article? I went to the link you posted, but I'm still not sure how to go about doing that. I am fairly confident I can defend the reference materials and content I used, as well as the book's noteworthiness -- the author has written several other books and has collaborated with equally noteworthy writers. Can you advise? @MrClog:ARD (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@ARynan: It seems like Czar hasn't been online yet since your last comment on your talk page, so you may want to wait for his reply before you decide whether a "formal" dispute is needed. However, you are allowed to formally dispute the blank-and-redirect. To do so, you should go to the article's history. Here, you see Czar's edit that turned the page into a redirect. Click on "undo", clarify in the edit summary that you are disputing the blank-and-redirect and then click Publish changes. Czar can then initiate a formal discussion through Articles for deletion if s/he believes the blank-and-redirect should be reinstated, of which you'd be automatically notified. Though I would advise to at least wait for Czar's next response before doing so. --MrClog (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait to hear from him, though I'm not terribly optimistic about his response. But thank you for the advice and guidance. @MrClog:ARD (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue. I offered three potential options on ARD's talk page, including sending the article to AfD, and we appeared to be on the same page about simply covering the little that is sourced about this book within its parent article. If the book article is restored, I can send it to AfD, but I already offered arguments for why the current sourcing makes it a foregone conclusion. Just to confirm, McClog, do you see significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for this book? Do you think it warrants an AfD discussion? czar01:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Czar: My explanation as to how to dispute the blank-and-redirect was merely procedural, and did not constitute my endorsement of that course of action. I have not reviewed the sources in the article in question. If you want me to do so and comment on it, feel free to say so. MrClog (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think ARD coming to you (after getting a satisfactory answer from me) is looking for your advice on whether this article should stand on its own, not just what the next policy step would be. I have tried to show ARD why we don't afford dedicated articles to topics that do not meet the general notability guideline and I thought I was understood, so I thought it was clear why they came to your talk page to ask you the same question. In general, the advice is to only bring stuff like this to AfD when other avenues are exhausted, not for the process's sake. I think I've given this topic all I can offer so I leave you two to it. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ARynan: Once you have incorporated the information about the books into the author's article, feel free to poke me and I will look whether I believe it warrants its own article and advise you on how to move on. --MrClog (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. For the record, my inquiry to you was also simply regarding procedure and protocol and was a follow up to an earlier conversation we had. I'll complete the revisions on the author page this coming week and poke you when it's done. @MrClog:ARD (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Photo Error
Hi there,
You put my file of Mindy Kaling up for copyright violation but I took the photo! The example you used stole my photo from me from when this photo was up on her wiki page for months because I uploaded it then! You can see the photo that I used that you are saying is copyright isn't the same photo--look at Mindy's face. They are different. I have the same kind of photo from several different angles because I took them. DayvonHole (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@DayvonHole: I understand. I have removed the speedy deletion tag for now, but I strongly suggest you send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with proof that you are likely the copyright holder (e.g. a press card from the event where you took the picture). --MrClog (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@DayvonHole: I have tagged the file with a template so that it will be deleted after 7 days in case the email is not sent. If they receive your email, they'll remove the tag. --MrClog (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
New PGP key
Hello all, please note that I have created a new PGP key for mrclogprotonmail.com. This was necessary for technical reasons. The key is available here and at User:MrClog/PGPkey. Best, MrClog (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This message has been singed using PGP. Please see the source code for the PGP signature.
I appreciate your quick checkup. Could you tell me directly if there is a quality issue next time, so I can make this small correction myself and make sure my contribution is not deleted? That would be very kind of you. Juliette Han (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Juliette Han, although your revision will be deleted, you are still noted as the original uploader in the file history. Also, I'm not sure what the benefit is of being the last uploader, as only the copyright holder is attributed anyways. --MrClog (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of GalendaliaCVU Member \ Chat Me Up at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Can we please un-CSD Renamed user 923716947x
I made a mistake, posting on the user page and not the talk page. I’m glad you jumped in there and got the ball rolling.
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi MrClog, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
I was under the impression this file had been published, but to be sure I emailed the CWGC. Here is the response I got:
The image in question was taken during the King George V’s pilgrimage in 1922, and is part of a whole set of images which were taken during that occasion. Many of the images were subsequently published in the King’s Pilgrimage book published by Hodder and Stoughton in the same year – but it appears that this image was not one of those selected for inclusion in the published book.
I am unfortunately unaware of when (or if) it was ever published anywhere else prior to its digitisation afraid – that information is unfortunately not recorded on the records we have.
Eddie891, that depends: does the CWGC know who took the picture? If so, and they died before 1950, it's in the PD in the US and the UK. If not, it would not be in the PD. However, CWGC may be able to provide you with other images of the occasion that were published (and thus are probably even better). --MrClog (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
It's very unclear, and the answer is likely that they don't know. Rather than email again and wait a month to hear back, I've found this 1922 book that has many similar images, which I can use instead (published 1922 so definitely PD right?). What would be the best way to nominate this for deletion? Thanks very much for being so helpful with this- and sorry to keep being somewhat of a bother, hope all is well. Eddie891TalkWork12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, it is definitely in the PD in the US (which means it's definitely fine here on Wikipedia). Whether it is in the PD in the UK depends on the picture's author (life + 70 years). If it's Sir Frank Fox (author of the book), who died in 1960, then it is not yet in the PD in the UK (which means it cannot be uploaded on Commons, but it can on en.wiki). --MrClog (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
MrClog, Sorry to come back again, but have you heard back from the NPG yet? I'm trying to prep Ware for a FAC shortly, and the FFD should be resolved before that. Understandable if you haven't Eddie891TalkWork22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Arbitration
A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}