This is an archive of past discussions with User:SoWhy. 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 uploading File:Omen cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Rusted AutoParts: The only editor removing content without explaining was still the IP which I have now blocked. The current state seems correct since none of the sources (including Deadline ("No final decision has been made")) confirm that the theatrical release has been pulled. At this point, it seems a content question that might need some discussion but not protection. Regards SoWhy06:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello SoWhy, today I revived my old sleeping account (nearly after two years). I have one other account (Kamilalibhat). I want to make this account as my primary account. So, is it possible to merge these two accounts? –KamilAlee16:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@KamilAleeBhat: While accounts with the same name on different projects can be merged via WP:SUL, two accounts with different names on the same project cannot be merged (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting an account). As I wrote on ToBeFree's talk page, you can rename your other account to this name if you first rename this account to something else. You can also just start using this account and declare on your user page that you no longer use the other account. Regards SoWhy17:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@KamilAleeBhat: If you want to just use the "KamilAleeBhat" account from now on, I can manually set it to extended confirmed. Just leave a comment here with your "Kamilalibhat" account confirming that both are yours and you wish to transfer the flag to "KamilAleeBhat" and retire "Kamilalibhat". Regards SoWhy18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yes I want to transfer the flag to "KamilAleeBhat" and retire this one. I further confirm that these both accounts are mine and are in my control. –KamilAli 18:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)–KamilAli18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@KamilAleeBhat: Good. I have added the flag to your account. You can now change your user pages to reflect the fact that you will from now on edit as "KamilAleeBhat" and that "Kamilalibhat" is a retired alternative account. I also removed your username usurpation request since it is now no longer necessary. Regards SoWhy19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Evan Melada is a musician originating from the United States and gaining traction in Europe. Please stop deleting the artists' credible page.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmelada (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
And others, you name it.
That is why my point is not refer or use press or media articles as hard proof, they are the source that might make a mistake.
Also on Anna Sorokina talk, there is a mention, that Sorokin might come from German practice to use one inclination of surname, so they made her Sorokin as her father variant.
But there is no actual info or proof that she does have an actual German citizenship and none of her passport or other ID documents were seen as photo or scan, where she had Sorokin as her surname.
Both Russia and Germany are allowing double citizenship, so it could be even 2 variants together.
But because she lived there for only 5 years, I am not sure she could get a German citizenship in such small period of time:
To be eligible for naturalization, a person has to have lived legally in Germany for at least eight years and possess the appropriate residence permit. Foreigners who have successfully completed an integration course are eligible for naturalization after seven years.
Because of that and because we know she was borned in Russia in 1991 and lived there until 2007, we know that she has Russian citizenship and birth certification thus following the language norms of native language her surname must incline into female form Sorokina, Sorokin is a male form of this surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Капеллан Андрей (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Капеллан Андрей: Please see my reply on Talk:Anna Sorokin#Name Sorokin/Sorokina. Your argument relies mainly on your own assumptions of what must be correct. We have sources that say she is a German national. So we assume that she is unless there are equally reliable sources saying she is not. Same with the name. The vast majority of reliable sources both in English and German use "Sorokin". So we assume that this is her legal name unless there are equally reliable sources that say otherwise. The same sources you cite in Russian all use "Sorokin" in their English articles about her, see [1][2][3] for examples. In fact, the BBC proves with this article about another person called "Sorokina" that they are well aware that this can be the correct name for someone. You are welcome to present arguments based on Wikipedia policy on the talk page but you have to avoid replacing what reliable sources say with what you think to be true based on your own research. Regards SoWhy16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
SoWhy am I here, writing to YOU - plus in English, even though we're both German? It was a friendly (talk page stalker), who goes by the name of Ritchie333 and pointed you out to me. I was wondering where to ask for assistance, if I wanted to be active in various languages. So I just got here, I'm not very skilled in working with source texts and all tricks related to adding pics, citing external sources the correct way (with the right layout) etc. Apart from that I am a sworn translator and I'm highly motivated to contribute to both the German and the English version of Wikipedia, plus I can use Italian sources. You have been a mentor and I am aware that you currently don't offer to take mentees, which is totally fine. What would actually help me a lot is, if I could aks you how to perform certain tricks such as linking an article to a version from another language and similar stuff which the majority of users never needs, so hardly anyone knows... Hopefully you'll find this despite the fact I have absolutely no idea what a "ping" is... sonnige Grüße aus dem schneevermatschen Leipzig von Llydia (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia:A ping happens when you link to another user's page in a comment (any edit you end with your signature ~~~~). You can use templates like {{re}} like I did here but there is no need to ping if you edit someone's talk page since they get a notification anyway. I'm more than happy to help with any questions you might have about this project although I don't really know much about the German Wikipedia where I've only made a couple of hundred edits in the last 15 years. Speaking of helping, two articles in different languages are linked using Wikidata:. You can find an "edit links" button in the box with the different languages to get to Wikidata (see Help:Interlanguage links#Links in the sidebar for more details). Last but not least, you can write either English or German (I can also read Italian) but if you are indeed fluent in English, I would suggest using English so that others here might benefit from our conversation Regards SoWhy18:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds excellent! Plus I agree: by using English we don't look anyone out, so it's also a question of politeness, which can't be valued high enough in an online context. In the meantime I met some of the female senior editors and (besides offering to team up and work together on certain things) they pointed out that the percentage on biographies about women is really low. Even though I'm not a feminist, it's true... it's a crying shame to have no German info on various inventors (Nancy Johnson is just one examlpe) as well as on several women who work in genetics (another field besides medicine where I have extended knowledge). For now I started with rather small edits, like adding a few italian Ghost_towns. Since Corona has had a mean impact on freelancing, my plan is to use the gaps by making contributions to wikipedia. Can you see anything in my experimental sandbox which is behind my German User Account, or do you only have one account, which is here? If you could see stuff there, I would be happy to ask some direct questions, linked to what I try to do there... for now it's still under construction though and I hope to learn fast, so I don't have to ask for too much petty stuff... Llydia (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. I actually created an article about a female con artist here myself and it's so far my only featured article (Adele Spitzeder). As for your other question, thanks to the magic of unified login every user now has an account on any project. But since all Wikipedia pages are basically accessible to anyone, it is not really needed anyway. So just ask away and I'll try to help where I can. Regards SoWhy21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, wow, I really like your work on Adele Spitzeder, it's got a lot more to offer then the German version! The picture of her companion is of such delicate beauty - and in the WikiCommons - however my skills do not yet include adding a picture. In the meantime I got a bit smarter about some things, added a bit here, fell on my nose there, blushed upon seeing my own mistakes and ended up writing an email, to see if the person (I write about) could provide a pic or two for WikiCommons. In case she agrees: may I please email you, since you're an admin and I'm sure that there's some kind of document involved? I found your contact online but of course I won't use it without your consent. Greetings Llydia (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Lydia, nice to meet you, Ritchie mentioned me as well, I'm kind of busy, but in general willing to help. The link to articles in other languages is {{ill}}, - please let me know in case it is unclear. Easy if the article name is the same in both English and the other language, but no real problem if not. In the easy case, and let's assume German, you put ill|article name|de between the double curly brackets. You'll find examples in practically all articles I write, the most recent ones on my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia: Wikimedia Commons offers a fairly beginner-friendly, sophisticated wizard for uploads (=> Special:UploadWizard <=). It also allows you to choose the right licenses. Permission by the subject is handled by the OTRS team, see Commons:OTRS for more details on when and how to contact them. As for adding images, Help:Pictures outlines how to do it. All images uploaded to Commons can be added on every project but files only uploaded to a certain project cannot be used on another project. On a side note, you don't need to manually type your name when ending a comment, just use the ~~~~ and the software will add the name and date automatically. You can customize your signature in your settings. Regards SoWhy14:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Why, any anybody who might pass by - I could be seen as someone asking for trouble, as I added a paragraph (the last one) in a biography I researched for the German version I want to launch soon - it is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jones_(trans_woman)and even though I described the edit as "Addition of alternative view - no changes made in any other section - please discuss before deleting" this might be a rough one. I would be happy if you or Ritchie333 would be availble to have a look at what I did there. The case is rather complex - when I started I didn't even know if this person would have defined himself as a man or a woman and the story is rather bizare... (Plus: thank you for the info on the upload wizard, in my German Entwürfe-section I managed to apply some of the new knowledge already)Greetings Llydia (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia: Your addition means well but it seems to mix sourced information with your own interpretation of sources and your own conclusions, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia does strive to reflect different viewpoints (although not necessarily with equal weight) but the content still needs to be based fully on reliable secondary sources. The concept of "doppelgänger" is not reflected in any of the sources you cited and seems incompatible with the English usage of this word, i.e. someone else who looks like someone you know ("doppelgänger" = "identical stranger"). Possibly you meant "alter ego" but this is also not used in the sources. In the end, the assessment is the same, if there are no sources on how the subject defined themselves, then all we can say is "there are no sources about how they defined themselves" and not draw our own conclusions. On a side note, you should remember to replace "_" with " " (spaces) when you add links and to avoid adding internal links as external ones. If you struggle with wiki markup, the Visual Editor is a helpful alternative. Regards SoWhy15:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your honest words. Neutrality was exactly what I was missing in the original version of the article. Someone who dresses like a woman must be transgender seems to be an odd simplification, as no further "proof" for this perception was given. On the article's talk page I have been invited to proof the opposide, a task which is equally impossible. These are all lessons in humbleness. Somethin else: do you plan on including some of the info you presented about Adele Spitzeder in the German version of the article? I would only dare to try, if there would be a way to make sure you agree with what I came up with... have a good weekend, best Llydia (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia: The problem here is that we (as Wikipedians) can only follow the reliable sources. If the sources say she was transgender, then we will write that she was transgender. If other such sources dispute her being transgender, we note that as well. But we cannot say "it might have been differently" if there are no sources backing it up (see also Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content).
I currently have no plan to translate anything back from the Spitzeder article. Writing readable prose is hard enough in English but in German I also have to fight against my vocational training which makes me inclined to write especially boring. So feel free to translate whatever you want. If you do, remember that you need to provide attribution for translated content, see de:Wikipedia:Übersetzungen for details. Regards SoWhy12:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Why & any silent readers: In the case of Peter Sewally I just think that stating he/she was transgender, without even mentioning the original name in the title of the article and exclusively referring to him as "she", without any clue what he would have thought on the subject... is the kind of simplification we might not want to encourage, as wikipedia hopes to provide quality content. Yes, I was wrong with the Doppelgänger and I agree to what you said regarding that. But why do relieable sources like this one: https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_324702 limit themselves to the other extreme, by not even stating that this was the young man to be also known as "Mary Jones"? I don't want either extreme, ideally people should even be able to make up their own mind about this. Why not state: there is the possibility that this person was transgender, however we do not know? And I knew I had to adress these points directly on the talk page of that article. Regarding Spitzeder you made me laugh though: confessing you have a boring writing style (in German), that is a way of self-flagellation. You article wasn't just rated as good, it has four times the lenght of the German version. Whoever wrote the German one would want their version to be part of any upgrade, which would include more info - for that reason a direct translation won't do. I just didn't want to get started a) without knowing that you don't plan to do it yourself & b) without hopefully being able to consult you (if neccessary). Llydia (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia: As I said, we don't judge why sources state what they state. We just report that they do. Wikipedia's job is not to give people multiple theories and say "choose whichever you want", it's to say "these are the theories reliable sources have". I'm aware that gender and sexuality are topics that are sensitive for many editors, which is why there are current ArbCom remedies active in this area, including discretionary sanctions. As a new editor, I should warn you to be extra careful when stepping into this area.
No self-flagellation involved, being a lawyer, my daily bread is writing briefs that use a language that is otherwise not considered "normal" writing. For what it's worth, the English version started as a translation of the German version. If you write new prose based on the English version, no problem but if you translate stuff, the rules unfortunately require you to attribute it. Regards SoWhy13:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
So, after I realized I would have to write an additional article about the ponzi scheme (in German) to create a reference, I opted for a lower-hanging fruit, by making an effort to upgrade a stump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_Helm) I carefully chose someone who dies a long time ago and does not seem to be very controvercial - we'll see how this works out... Do you know, if I have to attribute a translation of my own text, e.g. if I re-wrote something and then added it in both languages? Greetings, Llydia (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Llydia: If you were the only author in both languages, then no (see WP:NOATT). Attribution serves to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY-SA license under which you and all others release content when contributing to Wikipedia. If you are the sole author, attribution would be pointless since you are already listed. Regards SoWhy19:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Community desysoping
I once offered a solution myself at WP:BARC, it only failed due to the issues surrounding Bureaucrats. Thank you for your vote, I've always appreciated your moderate stance on policies. However, I'm not so sure that ArbCom has effective safeguards against abuse of the system to penalize admins who do necessary and correct work in difficult areas - that kind of thing must come from within the Committee itself, but it hasn't always worked. Arbcom itself can be an area where admins get desysoped by the friends of those they sanctioned, mildly warned, or even simply disagreed with, or people who just have an aversion to the system of admins in general. I suppose much depends on the composition of the Community when a case comes up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kudpung: As with judges and courts in real life, the application of the law might be different based on who is in charge of applying the law. However, I do believe that the concept of a select group of highly experienced and competent editors (+ one SoWhy) carefully judging the merits of a claim is preferable to the alternative. ArbCom members are of course "only" editors and will have their own blindspots and biases but I am pretty confident that in the last years the community has done a good job selecting editors who will strive to be as impartial and thorough as possible when it comes to handling complaints about problematic admins. In the end, it comes down to whether you prefer trial by judge or trial by jury, only that on Wikipedia, the jury might sometimes also be the mob with the torches and the pitchforks. Regards SoWhy13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Trial by jury is, in theory, more equitable than by a bench having a bad day. But the Committee is jury, judge, and hangman, reading and rubber-stamping only the numerical consensus of a braying band of plaintiffs, and as you rightly say, "might sometimes also be the mob with the torches and the pitchforks" - and I do speak from experience. Perhaps Arbcom would be a better place if fully populated by professional jurists rather than a majority of rank amateur wannabe Wikipolice with big egos. Perhaps that's not going to be the case with the new Committee - remains to be seen in a week or so, but I hesitate to say "... community has done a good job selecting editors who will strive to be as impartial and thorough..." particularly where there is usually only just enough candidates to fill the seats (I'm glad you ran when you did). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
On 11 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coffee sniffers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sniffing for coffee was once a highly paid job? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coffee sniffers. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coffee sniffers), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Hello SoWhy. I was looking around and noticed Big Jake (lobster), since it's been a while since I ventured into the CSD area, I was wondering if you thought either db-a7 or db-event would be acceptable for that article. Or perhaps PROD? I posted on Hog Farm's talk first, but thought I might catch you in a brief available moment. — Ched (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ched: You can try PROD but I would probably decline a A7 based on the coverage in reliable sources. Regards SoWhy13:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'm not a big deletionist, so I'm not going to PROD. I was curious about how close that was since, as I said, - I've been away from all the CSD and AFD stuff for a while. Thank you for your time - Cheers and best. — Ched (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:As Tall As Lions - Into The Flood.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:As Tall As Lions - Into The Flood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Hello. I know you were just passing through on User:Trader john1, but there is something odd going on there. See COIN if interested. It's rare that an uninvolved new editor makes q -62KB edit. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Hello, thanks for your opinion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pahonia. This dispute should be solved by neutral arbiters with limiting of words in statements because otherwise neutral users will once again "drown" in the war of random arguments like it was at the AN here. I included these three clear quotes from Britannica for a reason. If a similar procedure is offered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, then maybe it really should be moved there. Do I need to create new case there or the existing case will be moved? -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Hello, thanks for your opinion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pahonia. This dispute should be solved by neutral arbiters with limiting of words in statements because otherwise neutral users will once again "drown" in the war of random arguments like it was at the AN here. I included these three clear quotes from Britannica for a reason. If a similar procedure is offered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, then maybe it really should be moved there. Do I need to create new case there or the existing case will be moved? -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hey, quick ping to let you know I launched a page for Contentful. I saw you deleted an old problematic version, so was hoping you could check out my version. Thanks! --FeldBum (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@FeldBum: The old version consisted of merely one sentence and no sources or claims of significance. Your version looks sufficiently improved to avoid a similar fate. Regards SoWhy07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello SoWhy:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Thanks for the notice. My edits to the Talk:Domain hack were 1) adjusting the language of (my own) comments to be more clear and less hyperbolic and 2) re-ordering of the page while maintaining the order of conversation. Conversations on the same topic were splitting up into sections on the same thing, and I moved them together while maintaining the same order. Both changes help the discussions. I am allowing the clarification of my previous language to be edited. Can you double check what I stated and revert? And/or let me know how I can proceed to help. 24.89.203.192 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Both are not allowed. Talk pages are supposed to be a record of conversations. If you refactor comments or move them somewhere else, the record will be broken. Replies might no longer fit the comments above them or might even sound more negative than with context. So even your own comments (assuming they are your own) should not be moved or changed. Per WP:REDACT: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. If you remove parts of those comments (again assuming they were your own to begin with which we cannot verify since IPs can be used by multiple people over the years), comments by others will no longer fit the original comments. Those comments you edited were more than 10 years old. Just leave them be. Regards SoWhy11:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that modifying comments could distort the replies as they were made on the original comment. In my defense, I performed due diligence and verified the discussion remained intact on both sides, and only removed unnecessary hyperbole. What about organizing the whole page? My edits categorized similar discussions together, without modifying the conversations. The talk page was easier to process and would lend itself a path for future additions to be well organized. Should I still not have done this? 24.89.203.192 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Talk pages are not governed by the same rules of legibility as articles. If discussions happened in different places and they were not immediately moved when that happened, the preserving of the talk page's record takes precedence. If you believe there are too many discussions to make the page readable, especially if those are pretty old, archiving the old discussions is preferable since it removes clutter without destroying the record (just like what happens on this talk page for example, see the box on top). Regards SoWhy14:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for informing me. I was not involved day-to-day as all the talk was happening; When I came back years later, I thought I would help and clean it up. The talk page is so chaotic. The re-organization (I thought) was nice, but I was not aware Wikipedia's strict nature on these adjustments. I understand why they would want to maintain a clear record of conversation though. I see that archiving is just moving the conversation to clear up the main talk page. So, I will leave it as is. Thanks for the help. 24.89.203.192 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
NewspaperArchive.com
Hi SoWhy - I've got a quick question about NewspaperArchive.com, and I'd be very grateful for any help you can offer. A couple of years ago, you approved a request of mine for access to it through the Wikipedia library; I never ended up using it at the time, because the person I was collaborating with already had access and was already familiar with the site, so she did the legwork there. I'm working on another article now, and would like to be able to use the site myself. My application (number 10202) shows as 'Sent to partner': what is the next step for getting access? I didn't ever receive an e-mail from them with log-in credentials, and if I log in using my Google account, I don't seem to have access (it invites me to start a 7-day trial).
Apologies if this is all explained somewhere obvious - I'd be very grateful for a link to a help page rather than a specific response. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Access granted through TWL is good for one year, so your subscription most likely simply expired. You can request a renewal by logging in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/, clicking on your name (left below the title), navigating to "My Applications" and then selecting "Request renewal" for the resource in question. Regards SoWhy11:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you - I've done that now. Should I expect to receive an e-mail from them, or should I expect to be able simply to log in through Google and get access? GirthSummit (blether)11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah - on closer inspection this morning, I see the e-mail said that my request had been approved, but that I'll get the log-in credentials in a week or two. Looking forward to receiving those in due course. GirthSummit (blether)09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
After seeing this I did the "renew" thing on my account as well (although I'm still able to login as usual). Hopefully it won't change my password. Do we have to "renew" all these resources every year? (JSTOR, etc.). I appreciate your work on this end of the project SoWhy - thank you. — Ched (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ched: I cannot speak for other resources but you can check for an "expiry" information in your account (like NArchive.com has). @Girth Summit: I was confused at first, yeah. Accounts are generated manually, so I have to wait to hear back from the resource. Regards SoWhy12:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Re: Fallout New Vegas
Hello SoWhy,
I wanted to discuss the reversion of the edits I made. To be honest, I thought I had my citation in there. I also wanted to ask about what is considered verifiable. See, part of me was reluctant to put in citations like the game itself. Because most of the information I get is usually directly from the source. I didn't mean to be unconstructive in any way with my edits and I was doing them in good faith. I actually don't understand which part was original research (or is citing the game originally research? IDK)? I just started editing a week ago so I am still learning the steps a bit.Thank you for your time--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@PricklyCactus2: Games can be used as a primary source for things that explicitly happen in them (see the article Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos for examples, specifically the references "story #" and reference no. 8 which is the game itself and which is used to verify gameplay information) but as WP:OR explicitly warns, you cannot include a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves (emphasis added). In this case, you therefore cannot write that there "seems to be an intended ordered" (sic) if the game does not explicitly mention this order. Hence, per WP:SYNTH you instead need to find a reliable secondary source that confirms such an order. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Oh! I see! I didn't mean it come off like that. I tend to be really wishy-washy on the intended order. I guess I should have worked on my wording better. In the games, the release order is the story canon because it has an overarching story. I used the term "seem to be an intended order" because technically you can play them in any order, but the DLC release order is the intended story order. The game confirms that with the first three DLCS talking about a nameless courier and Lonesome Road is where it is revealed. I hope that makes sense. I appreciate the time you are taking to talk with me about this.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@PricklyCactus2: I see where you are coming from but again, that is strictly speaking your interpretation. The DLCs do not explicitly state that they should be played in order nor do they say Lonesome Road is the last in any order. That is the point of the Original Research policy. If you wish to write about how the order of release has in-game significance, you need to have a source that explicitly says so. It's been a while since I played NV but I'm pretty sure you are correct that they can be played in any order and the game does not actually make people play them in the order of release. Regards SoWhy18:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yeah, you can play them in any order. I understand what you mean though. Since I have your time, I was wondering about verifying information. See part of the info that I was going to link comes from this article. https://novusbars.com/fallout-new-vegas-dlc-order-the-exact-order/ It is true in the game that they do have a level scaling system that can affect what DLC a player can play at the time. I think that's why I thought that was the official order (I played the game with the DLC instantly installed so I did the DLC in that order). Is that source considered a verified source? and would putting information about the leveling scale be original research if the game actually tells you the level scale itself? Thank you so much for your time/ --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@PricklyCactus2: The WikiProject Videogames maintains a list of reliable sources for video game articles at WP:VG/RS which also includes a lot of information on how to assess a source for reliability. Based on this, I don't think a food blog meets those requirements. You can use this custom Google search to only search sources on the aforementioned list. As for level caps, as I said above, if the game explicitly says something, you can use the game as a source. Regards SoWhy18:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
{re|SoWhy|SoWhy}} Thank you so much. I can add the information about the levels then. Also thank you for the resources. That helps out a lot. I am sorry if I am taking a lot of your time but can I ask another thing? I put an edit on another page and I wanted some advice. If you don't want to, that's understandable. I really do appreciate that you are talking to me and helping me out. Mostly cause it makes me a better editor. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I actually was put information about a DLC because it lacked a story section (while others had them). It mostly was about what starts the DLC, which comes directly from the game. Someone told me that was original research. It confuses me a bit because that is the only way to start DLC and is shown every time you play. So I am wondering if stating how the story starts is considered original research when it's directly in the game. I just trying to understand the logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PricklyCactus2 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@PricklyCactus2: It shouldn't. If it is clearly in the game and thus everyone can verify it by playing, it's not original research. Can you point out which edit you are talking about so I can see for myself? PS: You don't need to use {{re|SoWhy}} on this talk page, users automatically get a notification when you edit their talk pages. You do need to sign your posts though (the {{re}} template does not work without signing either). Regards SoWhy06:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh! Thank you. That's a good thing to know. The edit/reversion is here. My computer didn't load my citations so I tried discussing it with the person who reverted it (to clarify that citation is supposed to be the game). I think my wording didn't help (still learning how to write in the wiki). However, when I talked to them, they said regardless of it's in the game, it's original research. I know the first edit about Broken Steel is written well and it is seen in the game. The Pointe Lookout one's writing doesn't sound objective (which is my bad) but that is the canon as well. It's become an odd situation, to say the least, with the editor not giving me a straight answer and telling me to leave wikipedia. They said I was putting too much detail but the other DLCs have detailed plots, which is why I was adding to Pointe Lookout. I want to learn to be a better editor, but the conversation with them got me nowhere on how to improve my edit (which is why I am asking you). Thank you again for your time --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@PricklyCactus2: I have to say I do not really get what Ferret saw as problematic there. The "The story arguably begins"-wording is subjective, true, but I'm not aware of any rule that forbids you from citing the game as the source if the details can be found in the game nor any rule that DLC story details cannot be mentioned (the WP:VGSCOPE guideline cited does not mention that either). If you are interested in editing the Fallout articles, our fellow editor Anarchyte might be able to give you more specific pointers, seeing as he made Fallout 4: Far Harbor a featured article. Regards SoWhy12:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Tailing the Tomboy is an unmarked quest outside of the main quest line of the DLC, and is optional. To state it starts the story, "arguably" or otherwise, is OR. "The Local Flavor" is the first quest in the main quest line and is given to the player directly via notification shortly after the DLC loads. This quest pretty clearly starts the story, since it leads you to the point you would even meet Catherine. Finally, my statements to the user were not about this one specific edit, but in reflection that they had multiple fan/plot edits reverted across several articles. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, unfortunately I wouldn't be much help with the plot for other Fallout articles. Truth be told, I've never played the series. The plot section in Far Harbor was initially copied from their Wikia (now Fandom) page and then over the next few months we worked down to a more suitable section. On another note, I agree that "arguably" should not be included. It is an inherently loaded statement if it cannot be sourced to an outlet that also claims it's "arguable". I can give the prose of the article a lookover later this week if that would be useful. I wouldn't be able to comment on the accuracy. Anarchyte (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Like I said before, I am new to editing on the wikipedia. All my edits were made in good faith. Again, I cannot speak about my other edits that got reverted. However, since you were the one who reverted my edit on Fallout 3 DLC, I can only really talk to you about that. Based on this, I just made a mistake with the wording when it came to the plot so I should be able to write it properly knowing that since it is the start of the story. I don't understand how this system works but if my issue was that minor on this article, it could have been just edited instead of claimed as unconstructive. After all, you just said it started the plot. I understand if you had issues with my other edits but based on all the discussion I had about them, it was honest mistakes in a citation or lack of understanding. My other edits to game pages haven't been an issue, only a handful that I am trying to learn from.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Please re-read my comment. I said Tailing the Tomboy does NOT start the plot. It is not the first quest given nor part of the MQ nor mandatory. Please understand I've never suggested your edits aren't good faith. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.
Technical news
Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)
No worries, only one more time - the pic is getting too big for people whose qualities I noticed early, such as you! On my mind is a special tenth anniversary, with an option of continued reminders, - feeling old and thinking of a time after me when a bot could do it. For the time being, I like to remember ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: No worries, I really thought people should learn about him. Unfortunately, there are so few sources about details about his life, so I hope you have more luck than I did with expanding this further. If you can find a little more to write, it could be nominated at DYK. Regards SoWhy17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Over 1,500 characters, yes, but since it was not created anew, it also needs a 5x expansion. Before expanding, it sat at 500 characters and is now at 2,440 according to DYKCheck. Not sure as well whether the quote counts as prose expansion, so some more text might be required... Regards SoWhy18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It's long enough now. Can you nominate (and perhaps write a bit more lead)? (I have two others with deadline today, and both not ready.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. No rush with qpq. I am always behind with those ;) - I guess we could get beyond quantity in a hook, but don't know how to word it. Perhaps mention the statue of his main character? Never heard of such a thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
On 15 August 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gerd Müller, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
On 3 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martin Perscheid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Martin Perscheid published more than 4,300 cartoons, exploring "abysses of sexism, racism, ignorance, corruption and stupidity"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Perscheid. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Martin Perscheid), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
Technical news
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Arbitration
A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.
On 5 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marvel's Midnight Suns, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the upcoming video game Marvel's Midnight Suns, players will be able to create their own superhero in the Marvel Universe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marvel's Midnight Suns. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marvel's Midnight Suns), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Based on my understanding of Meek's method, once the number of hopeful candidates left matches the number of remaining seats, since the quota is reduced iteratively by removing exhausted votes and untransferred excess votes, eventually quota will drop below the remaining unexhausted votes for all the hopefuls. Thus trying to set some minimum quota that has to be exceeded means redefining Meek's method in some fashion, and I'm not confident in an RfC being able to consider all the implications of this. Personally, I'd rather have some form of approval voting ballot in addition to an STV ballot rather than try to devise a new voting system. isaacl (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Thanks for your comment. I had assumed that the method allowed for seats to be left unfilled if the method is modified accordingly as outlined at single transferable vote#Finding winners using quota where it says This process repeats until either every seat has been filled by candidates surpassing quota or until there are as many remaining seats as there are remaining candidates, at which point the remaining candidates are declared elected. In my naiveté, I assumed that this would allow stopping before all seats are filled. Regards SoWhy18:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for forgetting to say that my understanding is based on running thought experiments in my head, so it's possible I've missed some other exit condition from the iterative process with Meek's method. If I understand correctly, the key point is that quota keeps getting revised downward if there are more excess exhausted ballots to transfer, and by the pigeonhole principle I believe that's the only way for there to be N (elected + hopeful) candidates left without all of them already meeting quota. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nick Connors page deleted in 2020
Hi there, I was in the process of creating a page for Nick Connors, the singer-songwriter from Colorado and got the note that a previous page with this name had been deleted. Was this the same Nick Connors or another one? If it's another one, let me know and I'll start on this one; if it is the same one, do you think you could revert it to a draft article so I can work on fixing it up? I'm assuming there were issues, given that it was deleted.
@NM-369: The reference used in this page is a so-called short citation, i.e. it only references the work in question and the reference section then provides the full source. Many high-quality articles on historical or scientific subjects use this kind of references (e.g. yesterday's featured articleWilliam IV). The page thus only has one reference, Gaussen's essay that is mentioned in the "Bibliography" section. Whether that is sufficient, I cannot tell, since I don't have access to the source in question, but if you find more sources, you can add them to the article as outlined at Help:Footnotes. Regards SoWhy14:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Miscellaneous
Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Hello, I saw you deleted an article Gurindervir Singh created by me. You showed reason that he is not a notable person. Actually, it was my fault that I had not given any citation. He is a great Indian Athlete. Next time, would I rewrite that with proper citations? Would it be acceptable then? Jejsiguoa (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Yhwos! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk17:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Funding drive - who will donate when treated badly?
I have been on WP for over 16 years. After a few absurd, time-wasting edit wars, I don't even bother to sign on any more. The problems are pervasive and fundamental, particularly the group-think, bias against expertise and good (primary) sources, and cabals of really awful people given special privileges. I don't think there is a solution that doesn't involve completely banning ~98% of those who now have privileges and rewriting the basic rules of WP from scratch. But it's not going to happen, and WP is going to go ever further downhill.
When I get another funding drive message, I get a strong impulse to tell someone off. "Where is the '#^@% YOU' button!" I shout. So do many others, I'm sure. There is no allowed response to these funding messages other than: "hand over the money" or "close", if there were perhaps the organization would find out why 98% won't donate. User: Enon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.4.95 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
@Kudpung: Thanks for the vote of confidence but I don't think I could do that in good conscience. Despite my previous assumptions, real life has prevented me from dedicating the time necessary to be the productive member of the Committee the community deserves to have and I don't see any change coming soon. Working on the Committee was an immense privilege and an interesting experience but at this point, I don't think running again would be in the project's best interest, especially if someone more qualified doesn't run after seeing my name (as unlikely as that may be). So it would be unfair for me to potentially take the spot from someone who could be more productive. That said, I might run again if there are really no other viable candidates, but just to give the community the option to choose someone with insufficient time to dedicate instead of no one. Regards SoWhy07:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand. But not having you on the Committee would be a loss to Wikipedia. Not necessarily because you see things from a lawyer's eyes and Northeastern European paragmatism, but cetrainly due to the fairness you dispense. It's a rare quality in that committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 47
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
Hello SoWhy!
An article you voted to keep years ago... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_(2017_film). I haven't been active but received an email about a deletion for an article I created years ago. My question is, can you look at it again now? Someone marked it for speedy deletion after they chipped away the article and references. I updated references so it should be good. Also, I was thinking about getting back into Wiki editing, so it's good timing. Any advice on mentorship or learning resouces would be greatly appreciated and I thank you for your time.
This is a suspected sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75. That user was blocked yesterday for paid editing and sockpuppeting. After he tried to appeal and failed, suddenly this user appeared, editing the exact same article. The account hadn't made a single edit in 4 years. It only edited Wheels (2014 film). Now it's editing a bunch of different movie articles in an attempt to camouflage itself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for handling it, Fred Zepelin. @Film Fanatical10069: Articles that survive a deletion discussion are not eligible for speedy deletion unless in very specific instances, so the article should be safe anyway if they attempt that again. Regards SoWhy09:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm starting to see why SVTCobra said to me "You need to tread lightly if you are dealing with nefarious users. They can turn the table on you and use policy against you." This guy is cool as a cucumber - being extra nice to every editor he can. Does this tactic actually work on people?? Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Kenneth Griffin visibility changes
I notice some recent edits to the Kenneth Griffin page had their visibility removed. While I understand the desire to not host low-quality information on Wikipedia, those edits appear to be related to current events which are relevant to the article but not covered by any other public revision. In this case I think there’s benefit in keeping the bad revisions public and only de-listing them once higher-quality information makes its way onto Wikipedia. These old revs — even when low-quality — often serve as leads for discovering higher quality information through further digging.
That’s my $.02, anyway. Thanks for considering.
If it turns out that the edits were delisted not because of low-quality information, but because of libel/personal attacks/etc, then I support the call but leave a more clear edit message next time: the current message hints that it was just unsubstantiated content. Wallacoloo (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wallacoloo: I did not make the revert, I just hid the revision in question, so you need to address that part to the editor who reverted the addition. My log entry correctly identifies the reason as WP:RD2: Serious BLP violations. Regards SoWhy09:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw the BLP link in your log entry, but missed the specific reference to RD2. Apologies for not reading that more closely before writing. Wallacoloo (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sir, I wish to lodge a complaint against FDW777 who is abusing his administrator status by being adamant on reverting charges in spite of the fact I put reliable source as citation. It pertains to the article of Saad Hussain Rizvi who heads TLP, a political party in Pakistan. The very Wikipedia article of Saad Hussain Rizvi, in its personal section, mentions Saad Hussain Rizvi to be a follower of Barelvi movement, also the source I mentioned of newspaper FirstPost (a renowned news agency) mentions TLP members belong to Barelvism. Barelvism is headed by Ahmed Raza Khan which can be read clearly on the Wikipedia article of Ahmed Raza Khan so all the aforementioned make Saad Rizvi a follower of Ahmed Raza Khan, yet when I attempt to add "Influenced by Ahmed Raza Khan", this administrator FDW777 reverts it and threatens to block me. In my opinion, this particular insertion should not even need a source as his own Wikipedia page, also that of TLP - the party which he heads - mentions that he is a follower of Barelvi movement. I think the removal of my insertion is unfair. Please look into it and guide, Sir. DispelMispel (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@DispelMispel: This is my personal user talk page. If you believe there is conflict to be resolved, you need to instead follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For what it's worth, FDW777 (who is not an administrator) seems to be correct here. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it, you cannot point to a Wikipedia article to make a claim but need to provide a specific source that backs up the claim you make for every article in which you make it. If your addition is challenged (as it was here), the correct way is to name the source (which again cannot be Wikipedia). If another Wikipedia article already contains the source, you can copy it from there. However, be aware that you cannot draw your own conclusions as you seem to do here (see Wikipedia:Original research). Even if you have a source that says A is a member of B and members of B follow C and C is headed by D, the claim that A is influenced by D is still your own conclusion and is not allowed under the rules of no original research unless you can cite a source that came to the same conclusion (see especially the section on synthesis of published material). Regards SoWhy18:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I tried to remove a series of deletions to the above article, but couldn't because of some technical problem. Can you help? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.
A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.
This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.
01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merchandise giveaway nomination
A token of thanks
Hi SoWhy! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
@Sm8900: Since the adopt-a-user process is "designed to help new and inexperienced users", I don't think it really is a good fit for your experience level (apart from the fact that you already seem to have two adopters). I'd be happy to answer individual questions if I can of course. Regards SoWhy18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@SoWhy:, actually, a few users might disagree with you slightly. I think several people feel I could greatly benefit from soem degree of mentoring. So I will indeed appreciate any help and input. Also, I need to be able to have some adopter whom I can indicate as such, on my user page, when possible. so would it be ok if that might be you? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sm8900: The language was taken word by word from WP:ADOPT, so they can disagree with that page, not me I am happy to provide help and input for anyone who's asking for it, regardless of "official" adoption status. I don't see a reason why you need to have another formal adopter (in addition to CaptainEek and Iazyges) though. Last but not least, I really don't have much time to dedicate currently, so I wouldn't be feeling comfortable being seen as someone's adopter (which explains the "adoption break" userbox on my page). Regards SoWhy16:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)
Hello.
As you're currently listed as a host at the Teahouse, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each users will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.
Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.
To spread the load on our current list of around 65 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse, whilst I've had just one in the last 3 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here.
If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences.
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Hi, I applied in a timely manner for NewspaperArchive renewal at TWL, and while it was approved, it...didn't happen on their end. I put in a message on the Library Card platform about two weeks ago and still have not heard anything. NPA thinks my access expired on February 1. Is there a way to get this resolved? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I was informed by the platform on 24 January 2022 that the account was renewed. I just sent them a followup to confirm. Regards SoWhy08:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Just got word that the account was renewed correctly (hopefully). Please check if you can login using your credentials. Regards SoWhy19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Greentryst: Thanks for the heads-up. The page is not under sanctions specifically, it just falls into a category where sanctions are possible. Regards SoWhy18:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Thanks for uploading File:Heroes s01e20.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
I am looking for a mentor. I see you're taking in adoptees. I wanna go through a course under your tutelage for a period of time that you determine for a counter vandalism course and/or a course on proper page creation. After which I will be given rollback and/or new page reviewer privileges. I'm reaching out to you because I wanna do this the proper way. It will be a honor to learn. Cheers Amaekuma (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Amaekuma: Actually, I'm currently taking a break from adoptions since I don't have the necessary time to dedicate to it, I don't think that I can provide the kind of learning experience you are looking for at this time, so I suggest you ask someone else. Regards SoWhy11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
@The One I Left: You were the one to remove the content, so per WP:BRD, it should be on you to gain consensus on your removal after it was challenged. However, I am not interested in edit-warring over this, so I will do so instead. Regards SoWhy15:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
