This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rogerd. 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.
May 2017
Your addition to Lisa Disbrow has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You should still use your own wording. That's someone else's work, regardless of whether or not it is in the PD. Also, don't revert the whole edit when not everything was in the wrong. The infobox was perfectly fine. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I changed a lot of the wording, keeping some of it. Look at David L. Goldfein (the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force) or any other top military official. Most of them are virtually cut and paste jobs. Also, the info box referred to her role as acting SecAf, which as of the 16th, she isn't any more. She is back to being Undersecretary. --rogerd (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
She is no different than senators and representatives, they do the exact same thing as I did with Lisa's article. Why should she be any different? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, Mike Pence's current job (VP) is listed at the top, and his former job (Governor of Indiana) is listed under that. The same is true with her successor, Heather Wilson, her current job (SecAf) list first, former job (University President) listed second. Pretty simple, I would say. --rogerd (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, in each of the examples you cited, the job at the top of the list that person is currently holding that job. I don't see a precedent for listing a former job over a current job.--rogerd (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
My point is, even when they end those chairmanships, they will still be listed in that order because they are the most recent job title they had... which means that the senator or representative box is still at the bottom. Even though Lisa was Acting Secretary, she was still the Under Secretary ao the acting stays on top because it was her most recent job title that changed. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: No reason to. Being an admin is no big deal. I don't like to throw that around. Civil content disagreements are normal. In this case I decided that both of us had valid points and it wasn't worth pursuing anymore. --rogerd (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I know, but the template message would not have happened had I known this... just a simple comment! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Changing the order of the schools in Kentucky–Louisville rivalry
Sorry for the trouble just messing around with it a bit. Thought it sounded better Louisville -Kentucky because of Louisville, KY. But the main thing I was just trying to fix is the image for UofL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex22406 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Infobox photo
Greetings and thanks for your earlier comments regarding the 737 infobox photo. There has been a suggestion to show an earlier model photo, and a 3/4 image has been found (i.e. more than a side view, as suggested). If you have any further opinions on those photos the discussion is here: Talk:Boeing_737#Proposal_for_737_Original_photo. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
@MONGO: Well, from what I can see, no less trouble than is necessary! Keep up the good work. I'll send you an email to catch up a little more in a day or so. --rogerd (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I wanted to bring to your attention that you added the protection template for the page, but did not change the page's status to "protected". Sock(tock talk)03:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, just a heads up, on the RFPP you said the page was protected for three days but you only protected it for 24 hours! Just thought I'd let you know! QueerFilmNerdtalk04:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Re: Huawei Reduced 6,000 word article to 3,500. Removed dozens of outdated references, many from before 2010. Removed puffery. Cut detail such as lengthy product lists. Modest changes to make article neutral. I believe I did not change substance. daveb@dslprime.com happy to share information. I'm a telecom reporter. --Daveburstein (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
