→Astrophysics prof: Reply Tag: Reply |
→Question: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 300: | Line 300: | ||
What authority do you have to decide this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEditnotices%2FPage%2FSyrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=997764850&oldid=993348876] ? --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 07:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
What authority do you have to decide this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEditnotices%2FPage%2FSyrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=997764850&oldid=993348876] ? --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 07:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]], you are welcome to ask at AN whether I in fact do have that authority. :) It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, since it's as far as I know a new type of editing restriction under general sanctions and it's quite possible the community will decide that I don't in fact have the authority to assert such a restriction. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee#top|talk]]) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Astrophysics prof == |
== Astrophysics prof == |
Revision as of 13:03, 3 January 2021
non-regulars answering edit requests at articles that have plenty of regulars
Copy-paste from Talk:Killing of George Floyd
EEng wrote:
- (Idea 1) One way would be a template with parameters X and Y. When present on a talk page, it causes edit requests on that page to not appear in the patrol queue (or whatever they call it) if there have been at least X edits (non-bot edits) to the talk page within the last Y days. Something like that.
- (Idea 2) Or maybe that should be the default all the time, no template needed.
- (Idea 3) Or maybe either of the above, plus if the request remains unanswered after Z days, then it goes in the general queue of edit requests needing answering.
- Unfortunately this will take some technical work, not sure how much though. How about you and I commit to remembering to raise this at VP.
I really like 2+3, but 1+3 might be an easier sell. An added benefit is that this represents lessening the burden on editors patrolling requested edits.
Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests? It's possible the regulars at an article could be owny enough that they just mark all requested changes as answered/not done. Right now they'd have to answer those requests within minutes to ensure no fresh set of eyes shows up. Changing it to at least Z days might be seen as a downside? —valereee (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think the right question is Is there any perceived benefit to noninvolved editors responding to edit requests when there are editors active on the article's talk page on a daily basis? Answer: No, and in fact it's a net negative. Semi-protected articles (and semi is, I suspect, by far the most common form of protection) are that way because there're (shall we say) lots and lots of people editing, and therefore available for handling edit requests.So on reflection, I wonder how useful this patrolling-by-drive-by-editors actually is. Unless there's some flaw in my logic above (and I stand ready to be corrected on it), I would think that the vast majority of edit requests, if patrollers would just leave them alone, would be answered within 24 to 48 by editors active on the page. EEng 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, there are 10,000+ semiprotected articles. Orinx has 2 watchers, 1 of whom visited recent edits. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- And interestingly...there are ~20 current requests at semiprotected edit requests. One, at Balkans, is a month old. Eight are from today. I'm sure some patrollers come in and start with the fresh requests, figuring some of them will be easy to handle. And there doesn't seem to be any instructions for people on how to handle requests, unless it would be somewhere other than Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Responding_to_requests_and_mandatory_copyright_attribution —valereee (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
(Saw the comment on the article's Talk Page, and followed the discussion here) As another possible idea (independent from the ones above), might it help to write a polite essay on the problem of drive-by patrolling editors who flip edit requests to "answered" while posting useless and/or unhelpful comments that frustrate newbies? The intended audience would be the problematic drive-by editors themselves, explaining to them why they cause more problems than they solve by their behavior (including examples). Then create a WP shortcut to that essay page (perhaps "WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL" or something more catchy), and when you see a drive-by editor make a problematic edit like that, just revert them with a polite edit summary like "Reverted good faith but unhelpful comment per WP:EDITREQUESTFAIL". Doing so would 1) remove their useless post, 2) flip the "Y" back to "N" on the answer (to attract a better answer from a more knowledgeable editor), and 3) politely direct the drive-by editor to a well written page where he or she can learn why their short-sighted and problematic edit was reverted. I suspect most of the problematic editors would learn quickly and stop doing that after a single instance; only obtuse patrollers would go right back to the Talk Page in question to combatively revert your revert of their useless post. Would instituting something like this be worthwhile, and gradually educate the community over time to stop making those kinds of unhelpful posts that mess up the edit request process? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- AzureCitizen, it's not a bad idea. The problem here was that the person patrolling, who was just trying to help, probably should have just recognized the situation for what it was: a requested edit that may or may not be a reasonable change to ask for, to an article currently being heavily edited and with hundreds of active watchers. I believe the correct decision is move on, as someone brand new to this article is unlikely to be able to answer almost any edit request better than someone already working here. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng invited me here from the article talk because I was "missing the point". Conceptually, I have no problem if we want to optimize the edit request process site wide. However, the edit request response that spurred this was fine. While the request did not cite any sources, we don't need a response that "us regulars know everything there is to know, it's been discussed ad nauseaum, and consensus ain't changing." Perhaps there is something we missing before, there is new information, or this editor has a new angle? Or maybe they're just wrong or trolling. In any event, inviting them to establish consensus is a neutral response that encourages good-faith editors and does not feed any would-be trolls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Bagumba, I guess I don't agree that the response was fine. It felt to me like someone who decided to help out at requested edits, dropped in, made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response, and moved on to the next request. It wasn't helpful to someone making their first edit. What does 'please gain consensus before suggesting this alteration' even MEAN to someone making their first edit, much less their first edit request? That is a very high-traffic article with HUNDREDS of watchers, so there are many people available who understand the article, and answering an edit request there right now probably requires some level of familiarity or willingness to become familiar with it. This isn't some West Texas high school protected because someone keeps changing the name of the principal from Patsy to Pussy and someone's making an edit request to ask we change the stated location because they just put up a new building. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
... made their best guess as to what might be a halfway reasonable response ...
Maybe, maybe not. I as a semi-regular on that page would likely have said something as neutral and avoided outright saying the OP was wrong or assume I was necessarily up-to-date on the latest sources. You do have a point of regulars throwing the word "consensus" around, which might not be accessible to a complete newbie, but neither is pointing them that a way to an FAQ or giving them the impression that consensus cannot change because I am all wise (well ... I am, but ...) While I'm not saying edit request patrolling can't be improved, I am saying that the response in this specific case was fine, even if the (speculated) rationale behind it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)- Bagumba, believe me, I've seen regulars at a page give unfriendly and unhelpful and sometimes deliberately obtuse responses to edit requests. Let's for the sake of argument leave aside the quality of this particular response; I'm not even sure it's important. My feeling is that on a page that is currently being heavily edited and is actively watched by hundreds, an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request. Would you be more likely to agree with that? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
an edit request response from someone who is unfamiliar with the article isn't likely to be as on point as the most-helpful response that could be given by the most-well-intentioned regular, and so when a patroller lands on a talk page at such an article, it's highly likely the best move is to move on to the next edit request
– Yes, though I'd put it a bit more strongly: Even a mediocre response from a regular is likely to be at least as good as any response make by someone unfamiliar with the article. I've bolded part of your post because it's pretty much what we want, though I'd add that even better than the patroller recognizing they should move on would be for the system to never take the patroller to the page at all. EEng 17:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but that would be a training issue. Having the edit request just not show up at the various lists for 24 hours would likely fix the problem without instruction creep and retraining of every new patroller. There's just really very little reason for an edit request to be funneled to a random patroller before 24 hours have gone by. Any page that has an urgent change needed is likely to have multiple editors headed there or working there already. —valereee (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, sorry, by 'training issue' I just meant that trying to get patrollers to recognize when their help isn't needed means 1. adding to the instructions and 2. getting each new patroller to actually read and internalize the instructions.
- If instead requested edits simply don't show up at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable and wherever else they transclude to for say 24 hours, we don't have that same issue. We don't have to train patrollers. —valereee (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you just said, with the exception that I don't know what it is you're saying would be a training issue. EEng 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I think you must be reading something I said backwards, but no matter. So... shall we summarize the possible changes to the process we're contemplating, and then where do we raise this? EEng 17:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- That would be not unheard of, and yes. I think we could raise it at Wikipedia talk:Edit requests or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). My best guess would be Village pump policy; only 39 watchers visited last edits at the talk page for edit requests.
drafting proposal
- Something like:
- Patrollers of requested edits at semiprotected articles sometimes are the first to visit a request at even heavily-edited talk pages. Often some familiarity with the article and recent talk page discussion would allow for more helpful response, and on pages that are currently being heavily edited, there are usually many editors available to help. We’re suggesting that edit requests on talk pages that are currently being heavily edited simply not show up at at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable for 24 hours, or that they're greyed out for the first 24 hours to indicate they aren't in urgent need of help from patrollers, to give regulars at high-traffic articles a chance to respond. This will lessen the burden on patrollers at edit requests and increase the likelihood new editors’ requests will be answered by someone familiar with ongoing discussions at that article.
- That's terrible, but as a draft. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- EEng,I've given it a copyedit. —valereee (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng is this still on the radar? —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, I was just looking guiltily at it last night. The answer is yes, but I'm still just too distracted to concentrate on it. Don't worry, I never forget a commitment. EEng 00:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Not that I remember, anyway.
- Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I really wish I'd followed up on this before now. Every day at T:Joe Biden we've got people swooping in out of nowhere saying the same stupid thing over and over: Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, Get consensus first, like they've helped by saying that. I'm so sick of people doing mindless things that help not at all and waste others' time. EEng 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- The elephant never forgets. EEng 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Still on my mind. EEng 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Zero worries, there's no urgency. —valereee (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Arbor-treeish break
I have another thought on how to go about this, but first I need to understand something. Where do these protected edit requests come from? What I mean is, how do IP editors stumble into the place where they're told "You can't edit this article, but if you fill in this box that will make a post to the talk page, with this little template attached"? I had imagine that it pops up when they try to edit the article, but I logged out just now and I realize that, in fact, when an IP tries to edit a protected article, there is simply no edit button for them to click. So where, exactly, do these templated posts come from?
The reason I ask is that, it seems to me, the way to fix our problem is just to make is so the edit-request template is omitted from the post. In other words, we don't need options for how the request will be handled, what we need an option to make the post just a simple post, without the request template. EEng 19:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, I think these must be people who are used to being able to edit, or people sophisticated enough to realize viewing source might let you edit. If you log out and click view source, you get an edit request button. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not to butt in, but I saw "investigate how that template pops up". I'm thinking you may be referring to the set of templates that is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (shown when clicking "view source"). The one shown in the header after you click "submit an edit request" and are redirected to the talk page is Template:Edit extended-protected/editintro. The template popping up in the post itself is the preload: . Mobile editors can't see any of this, though, and when they click the pencil they just see "This page is protected to prevent vandalism", so how on earth they're submitting requests I don't know...Regarding the "no consensus" replies, probably just a habit of using the userscript and giving the generic responses I think. I've been guilty of it too, but now that you mention it, I suppose it is a pretty unhelpful thing to reply with. Also worth noting Module:Protected edit request shows the banner. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- So, I've already poured myself a glass of wine. Don't judge. But why is that better than having edit requests for articles (that have 400+ watchers who visited recent edits/have 50 edits per day) or edit requests less than 24 hours old simply not show up at the edit requests dashboard? That's probably where most of these eager beavers are coming from. —valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes, it's all coming back to me now. OK, so we need to investigate how that template pops up, and what mechanism can be inserted to modify that on an article-by-article basis, perhaps based on some magic word or template inserted on the article's talk page. EEng 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
PP
IP is edit warring and the following need PP, please? List of lighthouses in China (article) and List of lighthouses in Hong Kong (redirect). Atsme 💬 📧 18:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I protect the china article, but I'm not following on the HK -- is it a redirect page that's got the problem? —valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Both - the IP is removing material from the China article and creating a new article, then removing the redirect. Based on my research, the Hong Kong list (article) was deleted and a redirect was created which was supported by consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I'm sorry, I'm too stupid for this. :) I think I've gotten it, but of course the wrong versions are probably protected. I'll leave a message at the IP's talk. —valereee (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, Val. List of lighthouses in Hong Kong needs to be restored as a redirect to List of lighthouses in China. Atsme 💬 📧 19:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC) PS: I restored the redirect, and advised the lighthouse project.Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so the main article is protected and that means List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Lighthouses_in_Hong_Kong is in tact; so, should the redirect be speedy deleted? The IP removed the redirect and created a duplicate list to what we already have as a subsection per the aforementioned. The current List of lighthouses in China is not overflowing or in need of a split. I realize that spin-offs cannot be speedy deleted but this is technically a redirect, so what do you think? Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, hm. I think I'd leave the redirect. They're cheap, and it's possible someone would type that in to see if we had that article yet. I'm thinking if the problem keeps recurring we protect it instead? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- See this, and then see the reverts I made today here. If you can protect both it may help. That IP needs to start a discussion because the article isn't so large that it needs a spin-off. It's just a list and it's convenient to have the locations in one place (despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but hey - if consensus agrees it should be a separate article, it's ok with me. The IP needs to start a discussion on the talk page of the China list and make that happen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, yeah, I've recommended that. Don't hold your breath. Okay, I'll semi both for a short time. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Val! If you are only protecting the page for 2 or 3 days, it isn't working. See this edit today. DumbBot also removed the pp symbol on the 16th presumably because the page wasn't protected, so that's twice now. The IP reverted immediately following DumbBot's removal, see this and this. Also see List of lighthouses in Hong Kong - they've been busy, and now they have created List of lighthouses in Macau. They have also placed improper tags so I've replaced the redirects. There has not been any discussion on the Talk page to arrive at a consensus to move/split those sections. As a patroller, it is difficult for me to properly do my work when others refuse to follow WP:PAG, as is the case with this IP. They apparently want it known that there is a People's Republic of China and that China is not part of it, or so it seems by the edits and separation of the lighthouses. Should it be escalated to AN or ANI if you have concerns over longer PP or blocking the IP? I created a discussion on Talk:List of lighthouses in China for the splits, hopefully to stop the disrutpive editing. Atsme 💬 📧 11:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, yeah, I've recommended that. Don't hold your breath. Okay, I'll semi both for a short time. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- See this, and then see the reverts I made today here. If you can protect both it may help. That IP needs to start a discussion because the article isn't so large that it needs a spin-off. It's just a list and it's convenient to have the locations in one place (despite WP:NOTDIRECTORY) but hey - if consensus agrees it should be a separate article, it's ok with me. The IP needs to start a discussion on the talk page of the China list and make that happen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, hm. I think I'd leave the redirect. They're cheap, and it's possible someone would type that in to see if we had that article yet. I'm thinking if the problem keeps recurring we protect it instead? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so the main article is protected and that means List_of_lighthouses_in_China#Lighthouses_in_Hong_Kong is in tact; so, should the redirect be speedy deleted? The IP removed the redirect and created a duplicate list to what we already have as a subsection per the aforementioned. The current List of lighthouses in China is not overflowing or in need of a split. I realize that spin-offs cannot be speedy deleted but this is technically a redirect, so what do you think? Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, Val. List of lighthouses in Hong Kong needs to be restored as a redirect to List of lighthouses in China. Atsme 💬 📧 19:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC) PS: I restored the redirect, and advised the lighthouse project.Atsme 💬 📧 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Adding again - it is beginning to look a lot like vandalism based on this edit by 219.77.112.107 - a repeat offender. Then there are the brief edits by 210.0.147.67 - see this list. We also have this IP who is doing good work gnoming. Atsme 💬 📧 12:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, is that first edit just a link to the Chinese article? Where did it even insert it? It looks like in the categories, but I can't see anything there. When I click to vis ed it says no change. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've semi'd the china list for a week to try to get the IP to discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- It could be a high schooler jacking around - that edit wikilinks here. Vandalism? At the same time, I've got this and this going on which links to this - pure vandalism. The IP issue is still a cost-benefit argument. I say it costs more than it benefits but I'm only one editor in the trenches who has to deal with it. Imagine if we had global strike of registered editors/admins who have grown weary of the nuisance work. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, IMO, as more and more people edit from smartphones, we'll likely have to go to requiring people to request to edit from a specific IP. Like maybe their first edit is for a specific IP to be whitelisted, and then they have to wait for an adminbot to get around to that. For dynamic IPs that means every session, so dynamic IPs would have a strong motivation to register an account. I don't see how we'll ever keep up if we don't go to something like that. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're not going to stop are they? It's pure disruption. I've never been exposed to anything quite like this before. They refuse to discuss it at the proper talk page for whatever reason. They are following behind my notices at the various project pages and attempting to change the discussion venue. That's flat-out WP:NOTHERE disruption. This is a classic example of why I'm glad you're the admin and not me. 🤪🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, wait, what? —valereee (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
An IP22:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) I went to the project pages WP:WikiProject Lists, WP:WikiProject Lighthouses, WP:WikiProject China and posted the proper venue. An IP went to all project talk pages and tried to re-route the discussion. I went ahead and voted on Talk:List of lighthouses in China to help get the discussion going. Start there. Atsme 💬 📧 21:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)- Atsme, I've started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/14.0.180.170#Suspected_sockpuppets based on what looks like obvious IP hopping to sock. It might be helpful if you'd add the rest of the IPs that were reverting, it's possible one of them will connect to an actual account. —valereee (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, wait, what? —valereee (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- They're not going to stop are they? It's pure disruption. I've never been exposed to anything quite like this before. They refuse to discuss it at the proper talk page for whatever reason. They are following behind my notices at the various project pages and attempting to change the discussion venue. That's flat-out WP:NOTHERE disruption. This is a classic example of why I'm glad you're the admin and not me. 🤪🤣 Atsme 💬 📧 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, IMO, as more and more people edit from smartphones, we'll likely have to go to requiring people to request to edit from a specific IP. Like maybe their first edit is for a specific IP to be whitelisted, and then they have to wait for an adminbot to get around to that. For dynamic IPs that means every session, so dynamic IPs would have a strong motivation to register an account. I don't see how we'll ever keep up if we don't go to something like that. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- It could be a high schooler jacking around - that edit wikilinks here. Vandalism? At the same time, I've got this and this going on which links to this - pure vandalism. The IP issue is still a cost-benefit argument. I say it costs more than it benefits but I'm only one editor in the trenches who has to deal with it. Imagine if we had global strike of registered editors/admins who have grown weary of the nuisance work. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've semi'd the china list for a week to try to get the IP to discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, is that first edit just a link to the Chinese article? Where did it even insert it? It looks like in the categories, but I can't see anything there. When I click to vis ed it says no change. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong too? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- This is not an easy one, Val - sorry about that - but the same IP just reverted my edits at Military of Hong Kong and added back 2 sources with bad links that appear to be government PDF files. That page needs to be semi-protected. We may need to do that to all for a while and hopefully those IPs will register and stop their disruption. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, open a section on the talk, and if they revert again I'll semi the page. This user seems to be a combination of completely ignorant and too-knowledgeable. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was actually in the process of doing that, but while looking for RS to see what's going on there, I found this recent NYTimes article. Now I'm thinking maybe a redirect or a move to People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong, perhaps with a merge of that section in the building article? Either way, it needs to be semi-protected so we can at least discuss it, and reach a consensus rather than waste the valuable time of our editors...including you and I. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, wait...you mean running an RfA because I thought wasting my time dealing with stupid shit was a good idea was all based on a lie? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- 😂 Over time, we learn to waste time efficiently, like watching YouTube videos. It takes less effort. Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, wait...you mean running an RfA because I thought wasting my time dealing with stupid shit was a good idea was all based on a lie? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I was actually in the process of doing that, but while looking for RS to see what's going on there, I found this recent NYTimes article. Now I'm thinking maybe a redirect or a move to People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong, perhaps with a merge of that section in the building article? Either way, it needs to be semi-protected so we can at least discuss it, and reach a consensus rather than waste the valuable time of our editors...including you and I. Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, open a section on the talk, and if they revert again I'll semi the page. This user seems to be a combination of completely ignorant and too-knowledgeable. —valereee (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme: May I know what your point is of removing an inter-wiki links? Or just that you keep removing it because you genuinely believe that's "gibberish" as you put it? Who's waiting whose time? 210.0.147.24 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Val, what can it hurt to block those 3 or 4 IP addresses since they're being used consistently, and the behavior of all indicates WP:NOTHERE. Now they are ignoring TP discussions, and reverting properly executed redirects. If the redirect from Military of Hong Kong to Hong Kong Garrison is removed again, can you restore it before you PP it? What a way to start off Christmas Day, huh? Atsme 💬 📧 11:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's feeling more like trying to herd cats, huh? Thank you for all the effort you've put into this, Val. I'm feeling guilty that you've had to take the brunt of it, so I reached out to Daniel Case, a member of WP:WikiProject China. I'm hoping a project member will be able to get collegial discussions started where they're needed. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, no, don't feel guilty at all, lol! I just wish I knew some strategy for dealing with this. I feel like it's a single person or maybe very small number of meatpuppets who are IP-hopping, but maybe it's actually multiple people being sent here from some Reddit subpage for people in Hong Kong and that's why they all sound like the same person and geolocate to the same area? I just feel like even blocking a dynamic IP is just a waste of time, all the person needs to do is turn off their wifi and turn it back on to get assigned a new IP. And then the next person who gets assigned the other one is blocked. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't realize Reddit was used for that sort of thing - learn something new everyday! Well, it looks like semi-PP is a good option for now, and hopefully those pages won't have to be elevated to extended confirmed. Just an FYI, I have pending changes reviewer rights, just in case this is a waiting game for the IPs. The pages are on my watchlist. Atsme 💬 📧 13:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's feeling more like trying to herd cats, huh? Thank you for all the effort you've put into this, Val. I'm feeling guilty that you've had to take the brunt of it, so I reached out to Daniel Case, a member of WP:WikiProject China. I'm hoping a project member will be able to get collegial discussions started where they're needed. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- What's the point of going to WPChina and to one of their participants but not WPHK? Is this going to lead to a neutral outcome? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ping Feminist, who is a member of WP HK. Feminist, you don't have to read this entire thread, but we've got multiple IPs (which all sound like the same person, or at least they all have the same complaints and are expressing them in the same angry manner) coming into Hong Kong articles, and we can't seem to get them to discuss productively, as you can see at Talk:List of lighthouses in China, where it looks to me like they're IP-hopping to sock in an attempt to affect a !vote. They've accused us of "forum-shopping" because Atsme opened the discussion at that talk (rather than at the talk of the Macau redirect, which has only 3 watchers) and I enforced that; they seem to think the reason we want it at China is because we're biased toward China? I can't quite figure it out. Also they don't want to create an account because of fear of the government, I think; is that something you can address? Thanks for any help, and if you aren't interested, apologies for the ping. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Feminist please do go through this thread and the discussions elsewhere. Their disruptive behaviour, forum shopping, abuse of admin powers, and so on, may go much farther and deeper than what appears to be the case from the outset. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. After quickly skimming through this discussion, I'll make a few comments. 1. WP:HK and WP:Macau should be notified in a discussion like this which involves topics specific to Hong Kong and Macau. As an analogy, if a discussion pops up which concerns whether to create a Scotland-specific article separate from one covering the UK as a whole, I would expect both WP:UK and WP:SCO to be notified. 2. Split discussions are typically held at the article where the content currently exists, so having the discussion at Talk:List of lighthouses in China is correct. 3. The status quo (i.e. including Hong Kong and Macau on the China page) is fine, but it's not unreasonable to want separate articles for List of lighthouses in Hong Kong and List of lighthouses in Macau. These topics are arguably more significant than similar lists we currently have as separate pages, e.g. the pages for Åland, Réunion, Puerto Rico. I realize this is an WP:OSE argument which perhaps supports merging those lists for sub-national entities to the sovereign state rather than splitting the Hong Kong and Macau lists, but proposing splits is not without merit. This doesn't excuse edit warring though. feminist (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ping Feminist, who is a member of WP HK. Feminist, you don't have to read this entire thread, but we've got multiple IPs (which all sound like the same person, or at least they all have the same complaints and are expressing them in the same angry manner) coming into Hong Kong articles, and we can't seem to get them to discuss productively, as you can see at Talk:List of lighthouses in China, where it looks to me like they're IP-hopping to sock in an attempt to affect a !vote. They've accused us of "forum-shopping" because Atsme opened the discussion at that talk (rather than at the talk of the Macau redirect, which has only 3 watchers) and I enforced that; they seem to think the reason we want it at China is because we're biased toward China? I can't quite figure it out. Also they don't want to create an account because of fear of the government, I think; is that something you can address? Thanks for any help, and if you aren't interested, apologies for the ping. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- What's the point of going to WPChina and to one of their participants but not WPHK? Is this going to lead to a neutral outcome? 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Feminist you may wish to note that the Macau list was not newly created as Valeree and Atsme might have tried to portray. It has existed for quite many years. What they did was to blank and redirect it, which involved the use of admin powers to entrench what they did.[1][2] The Hong Kong list had likewise existed way until two and a half years ago,[3] and that blanking and redirecting was never discussed and there was certainly no consensus. It was also against the common sense to have done so given the established conventions not to regard dependencies as subnational entities except for those with special circumstances (e.g. Faroese atheletes in Olympics). They edit-warred against another presumably HK Wikipedian's attempt to revive that list from edit history, and had refused to discuss at the talk pages of the lists actually affected by edit-warring to change the venue.[4][5][6][7][8] 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Val, I brought here rather than discuss it on the article TP. Take a look at the following geolocates, it pretty much pinpoints the source: the enlarged map of the building; 218 IP, and 210 IP. Interestingly, they are all in the same vicinity. Maybe we should add it to the SPI case? Atsme 💬 📧 17:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I think the geolocate just gives us the comms center for the provider? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so per this site - (excerpt) Through a useful Internet tool called IP geolocation lookup, you can track an IP address close to someone's exact location, if they're communicating with you through the Internet...and if you want or need to know where they really are. You can get pretty close, depending on a variety of factors, to finding the physical location of someone's IP address (if you can capture it). Atsme 💬 📧 18:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, all I'm seeing is that they're all in Hong Kong. I don't know what I'm missing that you're seeing, but I see the same things I see when I use the geolocate link on the IPs' talk pages. I don't see anything about the Garrison building at all. I'm clearly too stupid to figure out what you're talking about. :) —valereee (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Zoom in on the maps until you can't zoom anymore. (+++). Re: the map of the building shows you it's located between the 2 causeways. Both IP geolocates are in that same vacinity (the white dot when you zoom in, the text reads City: Central) so when you zoom in, you can see the two causeways, the water and mainland. The actual map with the building shows it is also in City: Central, the 2 causeways are left & right, then there's the water, and the mainland. Atsme 💬 📧 18:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, all I'm seeing is that they're all in Hong Kong. I don't know what I'm missing that you're seeing, but I see the same things I see when I use the geolocate link on the IPs' talk pages. I don't see anything about the Garrison building at all. I'm clearly too stupid to figure out what you're talking about. :) —valereee (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so per this site - (excerpt) Through a useful Internet tool called IP geolocation lookup, you can track an IP address close to someone's exact location, if they're communicating with you through the Internet...and if you want or need to know where they really are. You can get pretty close, depending on a variety of factors, to finding the physical location of someone's IP address (if you can capture it). Atsme 💬 📧 18:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, I think the geolocate just gives us the comms center for the provider? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are there actually causeways there? Central is just the city or the main business centre on the island and where some ISPs have their registered address or contact address. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Or if an address is not identified, Central is often where electronic maps would identify as the locator point for this country. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are there actually causeways there? Central is just the city or the main business centre on the island and where some ISPs have their registered address or contact address. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you!
Dear Valereee, thank you for your time and advice. Best wishes for the holidays! --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- A.S. Brown, you're very welcome, and best to you and yours also! —valereee (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2020)
Fish processing is a significant part of the fishing industry. Pictured is frozen Tuna being cut using a band saw in the Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo.
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Edible • Christmas ham Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
The Signpost: 28 December 2020
- Arbitration report: 2020 election results
- Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.
- Traffic report: 2020 wraps up
- Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions
- Essay: Subjective importance
- Gallery: Angels in the architecture
- Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas
As-Sajda again
Hi Valeree, thank you for taking action at As-Sajda a few days ago. Unfortunately, after the protection expired, the same user restored the disputed content again (without having consensus) [9] and re-reverted (rather than discussed the change) after I reverted [10], Could you take a look again, or should I go to WP:ANI? HaEr48 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- HaEr48, I've given them a pretty strong warning about edit warring to include disputed content. Go ahead and remove just the content you truly object to, not everything they've done, and ping them to talk again. If they revert again, let me know. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect Valereee HaEr48 is not following due process JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, I'm sorry, not following. That's just the edit history for the article talk? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- By due process I mean the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, You will note no recent contributions to talk from HaEr48. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, to me it looks like you asked for consensus, they asked for something, you said there wasn't such a thing, and then the protection ended and you started editing. You need to gain consensus before you edit in anything disputed. —valereee (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- By due process I mean the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, You will note no recent contributions to talk from HaEr48. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- JorgeLaArdilla, I'm sorry, not following. That's just the edit history for the article talk? —valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- With the greatest of respect Valereee HaEr48 is not following due process JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
A New Year With Women in Red!
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello Valereee, I know our interactions have been rocky but @MJL: said I should give you a chance, so here I am. I could use your help with something. There has been an influx of SPAs or sleepers over at Irreversible Damage, quite possibly related to off-wikipedia WP:CANVASSING from Twitter. If you could maybe assist with mediating the heated discussions and consider applying discretionary sanctions there, I would really appreciate it. Thank you, IHateAccounts (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, IHateAccounts, of course I'd be happy to help. I've fully protected the page for edit-warring, for now. Hm, it looks like the talk page doesn't have a ds notice on it, which it should; I've added that. Everyone working there needs to get a ds alert on their talk page, if they haven't had one so far. Once they've been alerted, admins can use discretionary sanctions. —valereee (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
TimestampDiffs
On the subject of scripts that make it easy to grab diffs: User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs. For every talk page comment, the time stamp becomes a link to the diff for that comment. This makes it only two clicks to "thank" and three clicks to ANI! Levivich harass/hound 06:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, oh, interesting, thanks! I'll give it a try, thanks! I've got so many scripts running...I've been wondering at what point they start bickering among themselves. —valereee (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Even works on my talk page. EEng 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hm, I think it may actually be bickering with reply-link. —valereee (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I uninstalled reply-link and replaced with the WMF's new DiscussionTools. Add this to your common.js if you want to try it:
if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' );
In some ways it's not as good as reply-link, but on the whole I think it's better. Levivich harass/hound 16:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)- Hm, it doesn't automatically ping, that's actually better. might help me remember not to ping people to their own talk pages. Or accidentally ping someone I've agreed not to ping lol. And you can use VisEd to make correctly pinging easier for people with difficult usernames. I like it! I've been watching the discussion at (meta?) but didn't realize it was actually available on enwiki yet. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Funny cuz not auto pinging is one of the things I actually don't like about it. I hope they turn it into a setting. I don't think it's been officially released on enwiki yet, so we're probably all gonna get office banned for using it, but until then it makes replying a lot easier! Levivich harass/hound 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hm, it doesn't automatically ping, that's actually better. might help me remember not to ping people to their own talk pages. Or accidentally ping someone I've agreed not to ping lol. And you can use VisEd to make correctly pinging easier for people with difficult usernames. I like it! I've been watching the discussion at (meta?) but didn't realize it was actually available on enwiki yet. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I uninstalled reply-link and replaced with the WMF's new DiscussionTools. Add this to your common.js if you want to try it:
- Hm, I think it may actually be bickering with reply-link. —valereee (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Even works on my talk page. EEng 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
My edit at Human Rights in Syria
Hello, this is just a message to let you know that at Human rights in Syria, I tagged a poorly cited section with "citations needed." Feel free to review my edit and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Firestar464 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Firestar464, that's a better choice than removing any of the content! Not strictly needed -- as you noted, the section already has a silly number of cn tags -- but a section banner can help attract the attention of someone willing to check the assertions. Another editor may decide the banner and the tags are redundant; we'll see! —valereee (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK for LaVon Mercer
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
TimothyBlue, thanks, and same to you! —valereee (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Valereee!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on the No. 4 hook of 2020!
The 2020 totals are now complete, and your "professional day-drinking" hook for Jackie Summers ranked as the No. 4 hook of the year with 3,111 DYK views per hour and No. 7 based on total DYK views (37,332). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and please keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on the No. 8 hook of 2020!
The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for Goat tower ranked as the No. 8 hook of the year with 2,142 DYK views per hour. You landed two of the Top 10!! A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No. 12 as well!
Adding to a very impressive showing, your hook for Detroit-style pizza ranked No. 12 with 1,995 views per hour. I'd ask for a slice, but I'm a bit worried about what's been dripping into those "drip trays". Cbl62 (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
What admins can do at Syrian Kurdistan
I happened to see your update to the GS banner as described at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Disputed content requires recent scholarship for source. It's good to see an administrator trying to settle down this area. I have looked at the Syrian Kurdistan issue once or twice but felt discouraged by the complexity. In the past, the one thing I did notice was an apparent lack of RfCs at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. But at this exact moment there is an open RfC at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 2#Rfc: Syrian Kurdistan's lead: is it universal or not. It might be worth trying to get that closed. I know that some people are leaning toward an Arbcom case (per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds) but that risks becoming a time sink. Though it's good to see the work put in by User:Levivich to organize the issues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston, relieved not to discover someone pointing out to me that my "creative" restriction is in fact a major policy vio and an ANI has been opened. :) I've been waiting with bated breath since I posted that. Hm on the open RfC...it's over six weeks stale. Does it need to be closed, or can we let it die a natural death? Yes, yes, Levivich deserves a knighthood, we've already covered that. :D I honestly don't have an opinion on whether an Arbcom/similar case would be productive in the long run. It's all so messy. You know what I like to write about? Unusual food. Quirky obscure little bits of vintage culture like Feed sack dress. How did I even end up in Syrian Kurdistan, which I couldn't reliably have located on a map ten weeks ago? —valereee (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that RfC has kind of gone off the tracks, and it might be possible to get the original proponents to fix it. There is now a subsidiary discussion of sources at the top of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. The source discussion might find some way to get merged with the RfC. The beauty of an RfC is that people who are inappropriately pushing a POV might simply be outvoted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Levivich, do you have an opinion on the RfC? Sorry if that's a double ping! —valereee (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @val and @EdJohnston: I think it's been superseded by subsequent discussion among the participants, in Archive 3, 4, and on the talk page, which led to a compromise version of the lead paragraph that was added to the article on Dec 23 and has been edited since then with minor tweaks by a few editors (including myself, recently adding citations), but not reverted or complained-about. (Although I should acknowledge that like half of the participants in that RFC are now blocked or banned.) So IMO the first paragraph is stable. In fact, the first two sentences of the article are now well-sourced and I think have consensus; the rest not yet. I plan to keep going with updating the article using the sources identified on the talk page, and I think the sources are more than adequate to construct a basic article explaining the subject. There will definitely be further content disputes, but my hope is that I can at least move the NPOV tag from article-wide to a minority of sections, maybe even by the end of this week, depending on how much I get and what other editors think. We'll see how it goes.
- Syrian Kurdistan is doing OK since the full protection expired. It's required like two or three FTEs worth of admin time to get there, but so far so good. The rest of the Kurd-related topic area is still problematic AFAICT, but I can't say I really want to sign up for the task of comprehensively investigating/collecting diffs to present to Arbcom (beyond what's in the AN/Kurds sub-page, which is some small percentage of the full picture). It's such an investment of time. Also I'm new to the topic area, and I can't stomach the idea of filing a case request like, "Hi, my name is Levivich. I've been editing this one article for a month. Please institute DS on this topic area and TBAN the following editors: ..." I mean that would just be bullshit coming from a newcomer. So I'm not going to be filing an Arbcom case, but those with more experience in the topic area (or an admin) might. Levivich harass/hound 21:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- A full case takes a long time and Arbcom does not have special magic wisdom. The best they can do is clamp down on especially bad situations that have been running out of control. This particular area is not (in my opinion) out of control, but it may seem so unappealing to outsiders that they don't choose to come in and try to help. So, in a sense, what it needs is 'good marketing' which Levivich has helped with. Thanks to his work, the problem now looks somewhat tractable. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- One thing I would appreciate, and maybe I should ask for this at the AN thread, is if an admin or three would look at the AN/Kurd subpage and say whether or not the various complained-of-edits (like removing "Kurdistan", or Kurdish-language translations) are or are not disruptive and should or should not continue. Editors need to either stop doing the problematic edits (if consensus is they're disruptive) or stop complaining about them (if consensus is that they're improvements or at least not disruptive), because both the edits and the complaints continue. Levivich harass/hound 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- A full case takes a long time and Arbcom does not have special magic wisdom. The best they can do is clamp down on especially bad situations that have been running out of control. This particular area is not (in my opinion) out of control, but it may seem so unappealing to outsiders that they don't choose to come in and try to help. So, in a sense, what it needs is 'good marketing' which Levivich has helped with. Thanks to his work, the problem now looks somewhat tractable. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Levivich, do you have an opinion on the RfC? Sorry if that's a double ping! —valereee (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that RfC has kind of gone off the tracks, and it might be possible to get the original proponents to fix it. There is now a subsidiary discussion of sources at the top of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. The source discussion might find some way to get merged with the RfC. The beauty of an RfC is that people who are inappropriately pushing a POV might simply be outvoted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Question
What authority do you have to decide this: [11] ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Supreme Deliciousness, you are welcome to ask at AN whether I in fact do have that authority. :) It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, since it's as far as I know a new type of editing restriction under general sanctions and it's quite possible the community will decide that I don't in fact have the authority to assert such a restriction. —valereee (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Astrophysics prof
Hi: You partially blocked Marinaromanova55 from Richard V. E. Lovelace. She's started communicating, first on Worm That Turned's talk page, then at the Teahouse, where she posted what may have been intended as a response both to me (I did some rewriting of the article, so I responded to her on WTT's page) and the community. Can you help her out with a response (I think she's misunderstood some of my mumblings) and maybe a move of the Teahouse comment to the article talk page, which she may believe she's also blocked from? I for one say "moar astrophysicists!", and not just because it's Cornell (they probably don't remember me fondly). Yngvadottir (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Valeree. I saw WP:THQ#Need more help and explanation and noticed this editor had been partially-blocked by you from editing Richard V. E. Lovelace. Could you take a look at Draft:Richard Van Evera Lovelace since it was created by Marinaromanova55, but there's no need for two articles about Lovelace? My guess is that Marinaromanova55 was hoping to replace the current version with the draft version at some point. There might be some content in the draft that can be incorporated into the existing article, but not sure. In addition, could you please ask her to look at c:User talk:Marinaromanova55#File:Picture of Richard Van Evera Lovelace.jpg. I'm sure she probably meant no harm when they uploaded that file, but it seems pretty clear to not be their own work since it can be found used on various profile pages for Lovelace on Cornell University webpages. Even if it is her own work, it would need to be OTRS verified per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? just to make sure. I thought about posting about these things myself, but felt it might be better if you did since you've already interacted with her a bit. Too many people coming out of the blue and posting on her talk might just overwhelm her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly@Yngvadottir I'm wondering if she made that draft, then just didn't know how to move it/submit it so just copied it into a new creation? It's clear she's well-intentioned and it doesn't even sound like it's much of a conflict of interest. I've posted to her talk, let's see if she responds there. If she does, I'll ask her about the photos, but those photos aren't appropriate for the article anyway. So the guy likes to hike. :) —valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)