Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) →3RR: rply |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
{{unindent}} There's no consensus whatsoever on the replacement text (you're just edit-warring to get "your" flavour of a replacement text instated); you refuse diligent discussion about the content of what is the most suitable replacement text; and the RfC closure '''does not say when''' a replacement text needs to be instated; but the closure report '''does say''' to do step by step after discussion and consensus of each step. Your overall MO in the case is disruption and refusal to discuss to arrive at a consensus. In other words, whatever your other qualities as editor, here you're just a plain and simple edit-warrior. And, in any case, full replacement is highly counterproductive as long as many articles need to be converted, often by editors who still first have to learn how the system works they're converting. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
{{unindent}} There's no consensus whatsoever on the replacement text (you're just edit-warring to get "your" flavour of a replacement text instated); you refuse diligent discussion about the content of what is the most suitable replacement text; and the RfC closure '''does not say when''' a replacement text needs to be instated; but the closure report '''does say''' to do step by step after discussion and consensus of each step. Your overall MO in the case is disruption and refusal to discuss to arrive at a consensus. In other words, whatever your other qualities as editor, here you're just a plain and simple edit-warrior. And, in any case, full replacement is highly counterproductive as long as many articles need to be converted, often by editors who still first have to learn how the system works they're converting. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Discussion of that is fine. Unilateral reversal is not. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
:Discussion of that is fine. Unilateral reversal is not. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
::A single unilateral reversal of a bold edit is fine by the [[WP:BRD]] guidance, and the [[WP:CONACHIEVE]] policy. A unilateral re-revert, before discussion shows that that is the way to go is, on the other hand, a no-no, per the same guideline & policy, and that's what you did. You've been pinged in several sections at [[Wikipedia talk:Parenthetical referencing]] – would you care to participate in the discussions there? Tx. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 12:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Linkspamming by user Shabehr== |
== Linkspamming by user Shabehr== |
Revision as of 12:16, 12 September 2020
![]() Archives |
---|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 |
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Guido_Reni_031.jpg/170px-Guido_Reni_031.jpg)
Please read before posting
- Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.
- If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
- If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
- If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
- If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
- If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
- While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
- I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/ANEWSicon.png/150px-ANEWSicon.png)
Eddie891
Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
You've got mail
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Ilovemuppets (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I have sent you an email regarding Ramdas_Padhye Page
- Ilovemuppets, while I have received your email, it does not contain anything which needs private discussion. If you would like to discuss the matter, please do so on this talk page; I will not discuss it over email. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Straight Talk Wireless Draft
Hi SeraphimBlade,
This is FrankWS875. I am reaching out about the Draft:Straight Talk Wireless page which you assisted me with back in March.
I followed your advice, and removed the content which made the page read like marketese or advertising. After taking the time to edit Wikipedia and create a few non-promotional pages, I feel like I have a much better handle on Wikipedia’s guidelines.
However, when I resubmitted the page with the changes you recommended, it still got rejected without really any feedback on why.
Would you mind taking the time to glance at the draft and let me know your thoughts on it?
I thought I had a handle on the guidelines and was very surprised that this draft got rejected.
Sincerely,
Frank
FrankWS875 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe what the reviewers said was relatively clear. Is there something about it that isn't? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Restore Ramdas Padhye Page
Hi SeraphimBlade,
Please restore the page Ramdas Padhye You had deleted it on the basis Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I was new to wikipedia and don't know how to write the page. I will rewrite the page and you can check it. I request you to please restore the same
Sincerely, Satyajit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemuppets (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ilovemuppets, sorry, but there was nothing salvageable there, so I will not restore it. If you can now write it appropriately, you can always take another go at it, ensuring to stick only to facts verified by reliable sources and staying neutral in tone and content. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hollywood Walk of Fame (in-text refs & ext link)
Hello, this is TashaB, and I am writing on your talk page to ask why you again revert my edit of reference/citation on W:Hollywood Walk of Fame when a clear explanation is listed on the Walk of Fame TALK PAGE? Can I assume you were unaware of this explanation? Please review it, and I kindly ask you to revert your last until you have understood the specific WP guidelines that are explained there. And yes, I'd appreciate you removing your last entry on my talk page, as you will see it is uncivil and unfounded. I'll give you some time before adding more to the Hollywood Walk of FAme TALK page. Respectfully, TashaB 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
- Natasha Behrendt, you have been adding links to that organization and text about it all over the place in addition to creating an article about it, and were pushing for an inappropriate external link when that was not warranted. What you are doing has by this point reached the point of link spamming and reference spamming. This is often a strong indicator that there is a financial incentive which has not been disclosed as required. Regardless, however, that must and will stop one way or the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please be respectful and address the issue at hand that I have detailed, instead of completely avoiding the specific points and justifications that have been presented on the Hollywood Walk of Fame TALK PAGE. My edits stand on their own merit. If I esteem the Smithsonian's online archive and strive to enhance WP articles with such, there is no meaningful difference. I believe you are unreasonable in NOT addressing the issue at all here, instead engaging in ad hominum derision and threat. TashaB 19:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
- I already have. (I also note you avoided the discussion of undisclosed paid editing). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon? I have clearly disclosed I have no relationship whatsoever with Public Art in Public Places. Are you harassing me? TashaB (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I reread your previous messages, and still do not see you doing so. And no, I'm not "harassing" you—you came to my talk page, not the other way around. The excessive addition of links to them still will need to stop, regardless of UPE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please be respectful and address the issue at hand that I have detailed, instead of completely avoiding the specific points and justifications that have been presented on the Hollywood Walk of Fame TALK PAGE. My edits stand on their own merit. If I esteem the Smithsonian's online archive and strive to enhance WP articles with such, there is no meaningful difference. I believe you are unreasonable in NOT addressing the issue at all here, instead engaging in ad hominum derision and threat. TashaB 19:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
Ramdas Padhye Page
Hi SeraphimBlade,
Is it possible for you to send me the original page on email which was written as it is very difficult for me to write it again? I will rewrite the page and you can check it. My email id is (personal info redacted)
Sincerely, Satyajit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemuppets (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I will not. You will need to start over. That will remain the answer no matter how many times you ask the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deprecating parenthetical citations
Good job on the closing statement. Comprehensive, well stated, etc. Thank you for what must have been a major allocation of time to dive into this one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. And yes, it was a pretty fair bit of reading. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 40
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
- New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
- #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
- AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
3RR
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken, unilaterally undoing part of the closure of a consensus discussion is absolutely unacceptable. Do not repeat this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- "... part of the closure of a consensus discussion ..." – it is not: that is absolute crap – the closure does not mandate how to implement, and invites to not implement hastily without consensus. And I can only see that you continue to edit war: your edit has been reverted, don't re-revert without consensus after discussion, per WP:BRD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken, the part of the close is this in particular:
Additionally, WP:PAREN will have its current text replaced with an explanatory note and be marked historical.
That is explicitly part of the close and may not be unilaterally reversed. If you would like to challenge that portion of the close, or any other, you may file a closure review at AN, but you may not unilaterally reverse it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken, the part of the close is this in particular:
- "... part of the closure of a consensus discussion ..." – it is not: that is absolute crap – the closure does not mandate how to implement, and invites to not implement hastily without consensus. And I can only see that you continue to edit war: your edit has been reverted, don't re-revert without consensus after discussion, per WP:BRD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no consensus whatsoever on the replacement text (you're just edit-warring to get "your" flavour of a replacement text instated); you refuse diligent discussion about the content of what is the most suitable replacement text; and the RfC closure does not say when a replacement text needs to be instated; but the closure report does say to do step by step after discussion and consensus of each step. Your overall MO in the case is disruption and refusal to discuss to arrive at a consensus. In other words, whatever your other qualities as editor, here you're just a plain and simple edit-warrior. And, in any case, full replacement is highly counterproductive as long as many articles need to be converted, often by editors who still first have to learn how the system works they're converting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion of that is fine. Unilateral reversal is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- A single unilateral reversal of a bold edit is fine by the WP:BRD guidance, and the WP:CONACHIEVE policy. A unilateral re-revert, before discussion shows that that is the way to go is, on the other hand, a no-no, per the same guideline & policy, and that's what you did. You've been pinged in several sections at Wikipedia talk:Parenthetical referencing – would you care to participate in the discussions there? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Linkspamming by user Shabehr
Hello! You left this user a final warning for inserting external links into articles. Since then they are still at it. I had just warned them when I saw you had them a warning a week earlier. They also seem to be actively refusing to understand our WP:EL policy, per this discussion and this one. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places before the admin closed and deleted. There are questions re: both WP:LINKSPAM and WP:RS. Thanks. Barte (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)