en User talk:Train of Knowledge 2020

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Train of Knowledge, for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020.
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.

Speedy tags on User:Mizpeggy/sandbox

Hi Train of Knowledge -- I've declined the speedy tags on the above sandbox. This is clearly an attempt at drafting an article; it is even currently submitted to Articles for Creation for review. Editors are encouraged to draft content in their user space sandbox or subpages. Please be more careful in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

AIV clerking is perhaps a bit early. :)

Hi Train of Knowledge, please do not add administrative templates to reports at WP:AIV. Thanks for having warned the user, however! That was indeed very helpful. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome! I was just letting everyone know that the user has been warned for making inappropriate edits (twice, once for vandalising a page and second for attempting to vandalise a page by triggering the edit filter). I won't use administrative templates (just yet!). Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well. Hm. I see the misunderstanding now. That's not what we use the "Warned" administrative template for; it rather means that an administrator has decided not to block yet and is essentially declining the report for now. Adding it to valid reports does not support them, it makes them less likely to be noticed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Hi, the Wiki software gets a little muddled when an editor moves pages in another editor's namespace, as KJP1 moved User:Spike2323/Sandbox, so when you used Twinkle to nominate that sandbox page for deletion, it left the notification on KJP1's talk page (thinking KJP1 was the page owner) instead of Spike2323's. I copied the notice to Spike's talk page and removed it from KJP1's. You didn't do anything wrong, it's just a glitch that happens sometimes. Schazjmd (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

XfD closer error messages

Please pay attention to the XfD closer error messages. Sometimes it fails to do certain things as it did at Template:Military unit sidebar in which case you should do it manually. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sock tagging

Aniketdey2116 is resolute to include their account name in random places, including 1 2 3 4 they were blocked but have been evading. I saw you tagged and then removed a {{Uw-socksuspect}}. Neither that nor {{IPsock}} is really needed for an address that's used for a single edit by a block-evader who's just briefly on whatever passing public wifi networks they have access to since it adds no real information. If any of the IPs used so far develops a pattern of repeated disruption that would of course be a different story. There's generally no need for SPIs in WP:DUCK cases like this to get a block, but you should still hold-off on making reports to AIV for block-evasion unless they persist in making multiple subsequent edits. Best regards, Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Train of Knowledge (Talk) 08:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind message!

You're welcome! Happy editing! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Followup

Hi. So that thing from 2017 was locally blocked and globally locked, and also globally hidden with no visible edits or logs. So I'm curious how you came across it? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just looking at the edit filter log of User talk:Drmies. Thank you for removing the edit from public view, I didn't know the person was locked before. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I am very interested in the functionings of the edit filter because sometimes vandalism is detected and blocked by the filter. Sometimes, I give users warnings even if they attempt to make unconstructive edits. I've recently been replying to reports at WP:EFFP. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 22:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have an "edit filter log"? Drmies (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so all pages on Wikipedia (including your talk page and user page, and my talk and user page for that matter) have an edit filter log that documents certain edits. If the action taken is 'disallow', it will not go live (unless you submit a report to WP:EFFP). If the action taken is 'warn', the editor will be warned about the edit they are making (if the editor is sure the edit doesn't go against Wikipedia policy then the editor can then make the changes again). If the action taken is 'tag the edit' then the edit will be given a certain tag (for example; possible vandalism, blanking, possible BLP isssue or vandalism, references removed, section blanking and discretionary sanctions alert are just to name a few). If no action is taken, the edit is just simply added to the AbuseLog. If you want to learn more about the edit filter, please read WP:FILTER for more information. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If you want to view a page's filter log, you can press the button at the top of a page's revision history that states (view filter log). Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Filter logs in user space are where the unremarkable go to be unnoticed and forgotten. That particular log btw, has now been suppressed. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome! I will move on from this discussion. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 03:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent archiving at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

I just fixed a coding-problem with the talkpage archiving at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic. Anyway. So, in this edit your edit summary said "Archiving talk page content". I had thought that the content kind of went into the ether (because of the coding problem), but I just checked and from the editing history it looks like that archived content arrived in the talkpage archives anyway. Just wanted you to know. Shearonink (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Train of Knowledge. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2020-06-11. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Anarchyte (talk • work) 07:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Early helpfulness

Hey Train of Knowledge,

thank you very much for your many contributions in the antivandalism areas of the project. The encyclopedia only works because volunteers take the time to review others' edits, and your help with this is definitely appreciated.

An editor who might like to add a short confirmation below this message has expressed slight, and friendly, concern about Special:Permalink/959922486. Since we had talked before, the user asked me to have a look at the situation; they figured it could help if any potential criticism comes from an administrator who already had started a friendly discussion about a similar issue.

I think the main concern is eagerness to help, which is usually a very helpful thing, but can lead to accidents and strange situations when done too early. For example, to me personally, the block reason given by K6ka does not clearly indicate who the LTA was, and the blocking administrator sometimes knowingly omits this information per WP:DENY. It is also likely that K6ka knows how to tag sockpuppets and LTAs (humorous wikilink, no offense). I'd say it is more likely that the userpage tag was intentionally omitted, than unintentionally forgotten. It is also possible that K6ka simply doesn't care, but as a rule of thumb, if even the blocking administrator doesn't care, perhaps there is really no need for additional action two months after the block. For attention-seeking vandals with email notifications, the action would have created an unnecessary notification, proving that even two months after attention-seeking, someone still actually gives the desired attention. In this specific case, the user does not have specified a valid email address, and thus likely won't notice the tagging, but still... It might just have been unnecessary.

A part of the community – surely not everyone, but a noticeable amount of people – believes that denying recognition ("revert, block, ignore") is the best way to deal with attention-seeking vandals. Perhaps this is such a case. I have no idea, and I openly admit to this; perhaps you do have access to background information that I lack when having a look at this situation.

I honestly don't really care about the whole situation; there is no disruption yet. You probably even did not make an error when tagging the user as a specific LTA. You probably even did the right thing. However, it seems to be way too early to risk doing the wrong thing when trying to help in this way. Rollbacking and warning is fine, sockpuppetry tagging is too early, I think.

Thanks again for all your contributions, and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne tram classification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Transit Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to Poetry page

What links are you talking about?

User talk:2607:FCC8:A061:D00:A1E9:42FE:C1FF:1FCA

The only link I added was an internal link to Enheduanna(first poet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A061:D00:A1E9:42FE:C1FF:1FCA (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

May I note to you that I reverted your edit because you are not supposed to put opinions into articles nor should you include original research. You are allowed to have an opinion, just don't state it as fact on an article. Please see WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies for more information. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so your issue was that I was inserting an opinion into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A061:D00:A1E9:42FE:C1FF:1FCA (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I did emphasise previously that you can have an opinion (I'm not trying to change your opinion or force you to not have one). I also highlighted that it may be a spam link, which is also why I reverted the edit. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the link was an internal link(wikipedia article). Thank you for your contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A061:D00:A1E9:42FE:C1FF:1FCA (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fetch edits

User Aussie The Rockstar’s edits we’re clearly unconstructive as you can see through that at history. The redirect was reverted and the info he added was the same info on The Ruff Ruffman Show page, so there is no need to add twice. Please look at users edit history.

I will retain the edits in question based on your reasoning. Thank you for seeking dispute resolution and doing the right thing, not what other editors would've done. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert

(Redacted)

The above comment is essentially a legal threat. KidAd (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't even know what you're talking about. I never threatened legal action I said that someone else might take legal action. Anyways explain to me how someone's own words aren't a reliable source2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just read WP:TWITTER. KidAd (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

She's verified so the claim should be accepted: As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the line the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It is completely self-serving for Boebert to deflect credible allegations that she supports conspiracy theories. The fact that she is verified on Twitter has no baring over the veracity of her tweets. Donald Trump is verified on Twitter. The Twitter verification tool only provides information that a person tweeting (celebrity, politician, etc.) is who they say they are. Other than that, verification does not mean every tweet is factually correct. If only. KidAd (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The allegations aren't credible though it's based on a spinning of her own words by the media. So according to you, you can tell lies about people as long as you publish them in a newspaper and that person can't refute them with their own words.2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:RS. Until a reliable source confirms her support of conspiracy theories is not credible, the content will remain. KidAd (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The source used provides no evidence supporting the claim made in the article. 2600:1702:2700:E880:C191:5783:9F51:BF76 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! For Redacting Evriks Talk Page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEvrik&type=revision&diff=966769331&oldid=966768164

You redacted the unsightly vulgarity on Mr. Evrik's talk page. Thanks very much, Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 03:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reporting User:100.15.119.126 to AIV. I was actually just about to do so. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome! :-) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 02:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RE table reversion on New South Wales HUB type carriage stock

Hi there I note you reverted the table I constructed for this page. I would have appreciated a conversation about this before you did it and for now I have reverted the page until we have that conversation. The table I put together is designed to communicate more information about the fleet than a simple fleet status table is able to convey. These carriages were delivered as consistent sets (4 in total) and tracing these is an interesting historic exercise in itself. The value added by my table achieves this. I have consulted other wikipedia users in this space who find the table to be an innovative way of presenting the information. If you are having difficulties with updating the table, then I suggest you either simplify the coding, or alternatively i would be happy to help you make the changes - just tell me what you want changed and ill do it. James

Pending changes - unsourced edit

Could you please explain to me why you've just accepted this edit?,
A) It was unsourced and (and can also been seen as WP:BLPVIO if there's nothing online confirming it)
and B) The IP had replaced the template which is not the correct way to list a DOB,

Given the 2 points above I'm intrigued as to why you accepted that edit, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough, oops I thought that the DOB was the result of vandalism (I thought someone vandalised the page and changed the birth date to something younger than it actually was). Whoops, I made that mistake. Sorry. I will unaccept the revision and rv it as soon as possible. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Even so you should've thoroughly checked before accepting that edit, Please be careful as your pending changes right could be revoked if repeated (we all make mistakes that's understandable but that sort of mistake shouldn't ever be a mistake if that makes sense), Anyway I've made my point, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just tired. I've had a very big week. Bye. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Self-requested block

I've blocked you until 05:00 UTC, 18 September 2020, as requested at Special:Diff/970602550. Any admin may remove the block at your request. -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I question this close

Hi Train of Knowledge, thank you for putting your time into reading this discussion. However, I'm not certain that there was consensus to keep here. One editor has participated, voting keep, but I have added a follow-up comment to them. Can you explain your reasoning here about there being consensus to keep, and if you realize there isn't consensus, could you undo your close?

Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I will re-list the discussion again. Maybe at least 2 votes must be included for a discussion to include. Thank you for teaching me something new. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You Reported me For Supposedly Vandalizing my Own Page

When I edit normal Wikipedia articles, I'm professional. But on my personal profile, I employ satire. The notification I got said "IP address based". I guess I was logged-out. I fully consent to what I did to my own profile. For the record, I don't want strangers to know details about my personal life from a Wikipedia article. By being satirical, I can respect my own privacy without lying. Please leave my profile alone. No one looks up userpages for encyclopedic content, it's basically a social media profile so I treat it like one with all of the informality and irreverence therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Hamilton (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Woops, I thought it was a random IP address that decided to vandalise your user page with personal attacks. I will remove the original message on the IP addresses page. I didn't report you to AIV though, I just gave you a warning on the page (but I will remove it). I apologise for any hurt that was incurred. Thanks. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 21:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To relist or not to relist

I appreciate your re-listings of FFD nominations, but I wonder whether you can go easy on the relisting and sometimes leave the relisting option to admins, who have an ability to also delete images. The admins can choose to either relist or delete files. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the next time something needs to be relisted I will contact an admin. Thanks for teaching me something new! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 00:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can contact an admin if you like, but contacting an admin just for relisting isn't (always) necessary. Admins will know the backlog especially by reading WP:FFD#toc (or WP:FFD), so do you have to contact the admins about old listings? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Alternatively, there are requests for closure: WP:ANRFC. Just as you might wanna go easy on relistings, you may also want to go easy on closure requests, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure of CfD discussion

Hey, I'm afraid that your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_12#OMX is based on a misunderstanding. The proposal was merge/rename, there was a first reaction with an alternative rename, and a third reaction with keep but that reaction was disputed (by me). If any action is required here at all, it would be a relisting because of too few and too varying reactions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure of OMX categories discussion

I see you currently closed discussion on the OMX category. I think that the decision to close as "keep" was premature as it needs more discussion. Several comments were made based on opinion that the New York-based stock exchange and Nasdaq, Inc. are the same thing while we have separate categories for them (the latter is speedy renamed previous category:NASDAQ OMX Group. Even when original proposal was not supported, there was an alternative proposal by UnitedStatesian which needs consideration. Both proposals are better than keeping the name OMX. Therefore I ask you to reconsider closing this debate and reopen discussion. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beagel: it appears we posted here about the same CfD discussion, see section immediately above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about the error (both mine, and yours). I will take a break from closing XfD discussions. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 22:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

August & Middle MfD closures

Regarding your closures of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:August the First and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Somewhere in the Middle (film). "Two keeps versus one delete" does not take into account the nominator's view, which would also be delete. Thus, in both of those discussions, there were "two keeps and two deletes." However, be wary of characterizing things like that. Closing discussions is a matter of determining consensus, not counting votes. Lastly, it likely would have been better to close them as no consensus (or perhaps even relist them once to allow extra time for a consensus to potentially more fully develop). A no consensus outcome would have largely, in this case, made no difference practically.

Given the number of messages above regarding many closes across multiple venues, I might suggest taking some time off from the endeavor and gaining more experience in those areas. Reasonable closes rarely draw any notice; if you are getting negative feedback about closes regularly and from multiple established sources, something is likely awry on your end.

After typing all that, I read your comment of "I will take a break from closing XfD discussions" above. Alas. Warmest regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact about Template:Puppet

You nominated this template for deletion, and it is in the process of being deleted, but there was a somewhat-interesting thing that I found while I was converting all of the transclusions to Template:Sockpuppet: literally all of the transclusions to user pages were suspected sockpuppets of one user: Bailrigg (talk · contribs), by one user: MRSC (talk · contribs), back in 2006, and none of the accounts have ever been blocked. I found a 2006 equivalent of an SPI report for this user, and here it is. I don't know why I found this interesting, but it was quite interesting to me. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Train of Knowledge/2020