Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) |
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
::::This principle also applies to ''knowing'' women and ''understanding'' them. These concepts intersect as well [http://gawker.com/yet-another-bold-claim-from-donald-trump-i-know-words-1750331997] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
::::This principle also applies to ''knowing'' women and ''understanding'' them. These concepts intersect as well [http://gawker.com/yet-another-bold-claim-from-donald-trump-i-know-words-1750331997] [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::Classic :D [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''—SerialNumber54129'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">''' paranoia /'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''cheap sh*t room''']]</sup> 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Classic :D [[User:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:dark blue">'''—SerialNumber54129'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">''' paranoia /'''</span>]][[User talk:Serial Number 54129|'''cheap sh*t room''']]</sup> 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::Well, this is now [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Huggums537|at ANI]]. Sad, but not really unexpected. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni#top|talk]]) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:08, 21 May 2018
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Special:CentralAuth/Sameer Reddy
Hello, Sameer Reddy confirmed as a sock for INNAjm. Best --Alaa :)..! 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alaa, I'll keep an eye on the accounts. They haven't techincally violated our policies here yet as the accounts haven't been used at the same time. I'll leave them a note letting them know what are policies are. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony, I sent this notification only to let you know about this accounts. Also, note that Sameer Reddy put "This user lives in Morocco" and INNAjm put "This user lives in Romania.". Best --Alaa :)..! 21:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- New one وهبي --Alaa :)..! 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- New one ఇలియానా with more than 100 edits in enwiki --Alaa :)..! 13:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Alaa, just to give you an update on this, I've mentioned this to a local CU here and we're both monitoring all of these accounts to see if they are breaking our local policies around use of multiple accounts. Thank you for continuing to let me know about them, and I'll keep looking at anymore you bring too TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Tony, I opened this request on commons also. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. We haven't done anything here yet, as none of the accounts have edited at the same time, which is technically allowed (you can call it serial editing rather than socking). If there is an original account with a local block on en.wiki that you know about, we can block the other accounts as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Tony, I opened this request on commons also. Best --Alaa :)..! 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Tony there's highly relation with User:أليكس and User:Jnaga with confirmed behavioral --Alaa :)..! 15:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect, that helps a lot. Thanks. I'm about to get off my computer, but I'll look at it later this weekend. Anyway, hope you're having a great weekend, Alaa, and that everything is going well for you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alaa, I filed the paperwork at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/أليكس. Clear behavioral connection on the most recent one. We have a sock here that isn't stale, so hopefully we can confirm to that and also flesh out any sleepers. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect, that helps a lot. Thanks. I'm about to get off my computer, but I'll look at it later this weekend. Anyway, hope you're having a great weekend, Alaa, and that everything is going well for you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
sorry...heres this barnstar. Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
Joker
"no firm consensus as to whether or not this article is about the character as a whole or the comics character"—actually, there is a firm consensus on this, demonstrated in both the article content and talk page archives. Could you please strike this? It was not up for debate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey: I've tweaked it a bit, which hopefully addresses some of your concerns. I didn't see a firm consensus for it in that discussion, and it was raised. Regardless, the move didn't go through because there were reasons under the naming policy to not move it at this time. My close only affects the title and discussions relating to it, not article content. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't address it at all. There was a single editor—who showed no evidence he had even read the lead of the article—who insisted it was about the comics character. What the article was about was not the subject of the discussion. What the article should be about has been the subject of exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, as well as several other talk pages, such as at WP:COMICS. There has been talk of having a comics-specific article, and there even was one for a time (since deleted). The subject is long settled, and no impression should be given that it's not. Note that the editor in question has not suggested the article should be rewritten with a comics focus—they simply can't be bothered to peak at the actual article to even find out what it's about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the RM itself there was discussion on the topic but no clear consensus on that point, which is why I felt the need to mention it. If there is existing consensus elsewhere that everyone who opposed agrees with, then it’s already the consensus for the content in the article and any attempts to change the content won’t happen. I was only addressing the arguments in the RM discussion, and felt the need to mention it as it was raised.The RM closed as not moved because of the strength of the other arguments based on the article title policy and conventions. That consensus was clear in the discussion, which is why it closed the way it did. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't address it at all. There was a single editor—who showed no evidence he had even read the lead of the article—who insisted it was about the comics character. What the article was about was not the subject of the discussion. What the article should be about has been the subject of exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, as well as several other talk pages, such as at WP:COMICS. There has been talk of having a comics-specific article, and there even was one for a time (since deleted). The subject is long settled, and no impression should be given that it's not. Note that the editor in question has not suggested the article should be rewritten with a comics focus—they simply can't be bothered to peak at the actual article to even find out what it's about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Tony. I wish that closers in general would dispense with the bold “not moved” in favour or either “no consensus to move” or “consensus to not move”. This goes directly to moratoria, which I also think you should address in that close. I think it is a “no consensus” which usually means two months before the next RM. I think you declaring a defined moratoria is a good idea, because another RM will come, and better for it to come prepared than to come unilaterally by the most excited proponent. Even two weeks would be better than zero or undefined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
(←) @SmokeyJoe and Curly Turkey: I've expanded based on both of your comments here, and hopefully this addresses it.
SmokeyJoe: normally "not moved" is a stronger close than "no consensus to move", which tends to be somewhere in between the two options. I get your point though, and I've clarified that there was a consensus against a move in general at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony. On "not moved", it sounds like it is becoming on Wikipedia, or has become in the RM Wikipedian subcommunity, a term of art. I think that sort of thing needs to be consciously avoided, as a matter of Wikipedia:Accessibility. The page was "not moved" last week, and is "not moved" today, so nothing has changed? If a literal reading of the words doesn't convey the meaning, jargon is being used. Are these terms based on RMCI? I don't look there often, I have a particular dislike of important things being recorded there beyond the technical, as it is titled as a page not for the general editor. Closing statements, if a defined set, should be defined on the main WP:RM page, wouldn't you agree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- The "not moved" terminology is lifted directly from WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and is the standard wording when there is a consensus not to move the article. You do make a good point though, SmokeyJoe, it is confusing and could definitely benefit from clearer wording. There's probably a case for bringing that up at WT:RM and getting the wording clarified as you suggest. I'm interested by Tony's suggestion there may be a fourth outcome lying somewhere between no consensus and not moved... that's probably overkill to be honest. Some people even dispute whether there is a difference between no consensus and not moved at all, given that there are usually no fixed rules on proposing the move again. (In the case of the Joker, it's clear to me that the subject should be left well alone for the foreseeable future, even had the outcome been no consensus). — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the not moved terminology is directly found in THREEOUTCOMES.Amakuru re: a fourth outcome, I'd never suggest adding no consensus to move to RMCI (unless it was to combine no consensus and not moved, which I don't think I'd support now.) I was more making the point that it is a close you will see on occasion, usually when there is no consensus but the closer wants to emphasize that it has the same impact as not moved (or when it should be a not moved outcome, but one wants to hedge bets on a likely move review...) The Joker RM in my decision was firmly in the not moved camp, and since SmokeyJoe had brought up the no consensus to move wording here, I also mentioned it.I really like your point about two outcomes, and I think in some ways it is more accurate if not for the outcome of consensus to move, no consensus as to title, which I think having no consensus around as an outcome can help people understand better than if it were just two options. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, plus the occasional case where the article was already boldly moved, and the move proposal is to go back to the long-term stable title. In that situation, "no consensus" means default-to-moved rather than default-to-not-moved. — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, those ones are always fun... Honestly, in those cases it's best to go to RM/TR, have an admin move it back to the stable title (and move protect if need be) and then have the RM from the stable title. That isn't how it works in the real world, though, so yeah, keeping NC around to restore to a stable title is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, plus the occasional case where the article was already boldly moved, and the move proposal is to go back to the long-term stable title. In that situation, "no consensus" means default-to-moved rather than default-to-not-moved. — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Added by User:Red Slash here. RMCI doesn't receive a lot of attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the not moved terminology is directly found in THREEOUTCOMES.Amakuru re: a fourth outcome, I'd never suggest adding no consensus to move to RMCI (unless it was to combine no consensus and not moved, which I don't think I'd support now.) I was more making the point that it is a close you will see on occasion, usually when there is no consensus but the closer wants to emphasize that it has the same impact as not moved (or when it should be a not moved outcome, but one wants to hedge bets on a likely move review...) The Joker RM in my decision was firmly in the not moved camp, and since SmokeyJoe had brought up the no consensus to move wording here, I also mentioned it.I really like your point about two outcomes, and I think in some ways it is more accurate if not for the outcome of consensus to move, no consensus as to title, which I think having no consensus around as an outcome can help people understand better than if it were just two options. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- The "not moved" terminology is lifted directly from WP:THREEOUTCOMES, and is the standard wording when there is a consensus not to move the article. You do make a good point though, SmokeyJoe, it is confusing and could definitely benefit from clearer wording. There's probably a case for bringing that up at WT:RM and getting the wording clarified as you suggest. I'm interested by Tony's suggestion there may be a fourth outcome lying somewhere between no consensus and not moved... that's probably overkill to be honest. Some people even dispute whether there is a difference between no consensus and not moved at all, given that there are usually no fixed rules on proposing the move again. (In the case of the Joker, it's clear to me that the subject should be left well alone for the foreseeable future, even had the outcome been no consensus). — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
OTRS question
After a ticket is handled satisfactorily, shouldn't it be closed? I've noticed many pages in Open Tickets Need to be answered, but the English ones have been answered and are still showing up. Atsme📞📧 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, tickets that have been answered should typically be closed. @AntiCompositeNumber and Primefac: handle a lot more tickets than me and could probably give more insight. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- 👍🏻 Atsme📞📧 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, basically. otrswiki:Help:FAQ#close elaborates more on the different states, but tickets that require no further action on our end should be closed. Only exception is spam, which is usually left open and moved to Junk. The Dashboard can take a minute or two to update after taking action on a ticket. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Block request
I had a very bad experience and a very bad dispute and an accidental misunderstanding on Test2 Wikipedia. The problem was that User:MechQuester was indeffed on enwiki and three other Wikis for abusing multiple accounts so I reported for their account to be globally locked and the same user, MechQuester, removed my sysop privileges on Test2 Wikipedia. Due to this, it is making me upset and therefore, I would like to be blocked for a day to two until the dispute is sorted out. I would like to be able to edit my talk page as well. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Pkbwcgs, I’m not willing to place a one day self-requested block, as that’s something that you should be able to control yourself. If you want to be blocked, I will block you for a minimum of one week with no talk page access and the agreement that another admin will not unblock you until the block expires. A self-requested block is not something you should do lightly, so I don’t want to make one lightly. If you still want me to block you under these conditions, you can let me know here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, can you please do indef so that I can go off for some time and request unblock when I want to come back. Can you please do an indefinite block with talk page access. I do not have a figure in mind for how much time I want to be blocked for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. My requirements are roughly the same as these. If you want a self-requested block to force a timeout from Wikipedia, I will do it, but you will need to give me a specific time period (1 week or more) and it will be a block without talk page access. If you do not give me a clear answer such as "I want to be blocked for X weeks/months and I understand I will not have talk page access." I will not block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to be blocked here for a week without the ability to edit my talk page so that I can have some time off and I hope the dispute will be sorted out on that Wiki for a week and then only I can resume with editing Wikipedia. Editing just got too stressful so there had to be something in place to calm me down and this probably could be solution I can only hope for while it gets sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to be blocked here for a week without the ability to edit my talk page so that I can have some time off and I hope the dispute will be sorted out on that Wiki for a week and then only I can resume with editing Wikipedia. Editing just got too stressful so there had to be something in place to calm me down and this probably could be solution I can only hope for while it gets sorted out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Pkbwcgs, see User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. My requirements are roughly the same as these. If you want a self-requested block to force a timeout from Wikipedia, I will do it, but you will need to give me a specific time period (1 week or more) and it will be a block without talk page access. If you do not give me a clear answer such as "I want to be blocked for X weeks/months and I understand I will not have talk page access." I will not block you. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, can you please do indef so that I can go off for some time and request unblock when I want to come back. Can you please do an indefinite block with talk page access. I do not have a figure in mind for how much time I want to be blocked for. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Add Health
I recently revisited the article on the study Add Health and in doing so also stumbled back upon the user Add Health who added a bunch of stuff copied and pasted from the study's website to the article. As you may remember (not sure if you do since admins block a gajillion people a day), after this user had been softblocked for an inappropriate username, and had then made several unsuccessful appeals of the block on their talk page, you made their block a hard block so they couldn't edit their own talk page anymore or create a new account. I suspect that this was a much too hostile way to deal with a clearly good-faith editor who wanted to improve an article, and that they should not have been blocked at all. Clearly they were confused by the huge amount of information presented to them and couldn't find the right page that had the relevant info on it. I think you should unblock them and more clearly explain how to disclose their editing so they can edit without violating WP:PAID or WP:COI. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- They had ~5 rejected unblock requests, and no admin had decided to unblock them. Revoking TPA around the 3rd or later request is pretty normal. UTRS is available to them if they wish to make an appeal and it was linked to. I see no reason to unblock until they decide they want to comply with our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess that's fine. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Luigi
As I'm known to drop off the face of the wiki-earth for days at a time, if you can figure something out that seems to work for an unblock of Luigi Laitinen then please go ahead without worrying about further input from me as the blocking admin. Whatever the solution they'll need some monitoring as there seems to be a bit of a language/comprehension issue.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I'll see what they say, but agree with everything you've said there. Regardless, I'll give them a DS alert for BLP at the end of it to make anything in the future more flexible than block/appeal/conditions/whatever. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I could have sworn I already dropped a BLP DS warning on their talk, but I had them mixed up with another editor. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just declined their unblock asking them to answer your questions. I hope that was OK.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- The number of editors appealing blocks who could also use a BLP DS notice is unfortunately high right now, so that's forgivable...Yeah, no problem declining until they answer the question. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just declined their unblock asking them to answer your questions. I hope that was OK.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I could have sworn I already dropped a BLP DS warning on their talk, but I had them mixed up with another editor. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Request for deletion
Hello Tony, please delete this and this page, so I can complete the global rename here --Alaa :)..! 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Alaa, I got one and Oshwah got another. You should be good to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Event coordinator permission
It doesn't seem like there is any systematic qualification for receiving this permission. I regularly run events, and don't really understand why I have been refused. Can you explain to me why you decided I need to apply for this permission for every event I help to run, when some people have been given it without this qualification? --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- You've never had accountcreator, so there is no reason to switch it for security reasons, and you aren't that active on this wiki, so you don't fall in the guidelines for granting it permanently. You also in your request seemed to indicate that you don't actually run events that often either. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Requesting 2nd opinion
Hi Tony. If you have a minute could you take a look at the close here. I opened a discussion on the talk page but I'd let to get another opinion in case I'm missing something. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd vote to overturn if it went to a DRV per WP:not counting heads, which, ironically given the name, says
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.
You have a valid policy disagreement where different editors disagree on what is controlling. One side had a clear numerical majority and the other side didn't have any particularly strong arguments to overcome that in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)- Thanks. Steve is a solid admin and I hate 2nd guessing another admins judgement calls. A lot of what we deal with is not black or white and judgement calls sometimes can go either way depending on who is looking at it. But this one really does look like maybe he didn't see how lopsided the discussion was. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed there on all counts. I can also see why he might have closed that way because a lot of the "keeps" were at the end, and that does tend to make them look larger than they actually are. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like this is going to be settled at DRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. Since we discussed this outside of the AfD talk page I would gently suggest that you refrain from commenting at the DRV in case you were thinking about it. I don't want anyone wondering if I was canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Commented and disclosed this. I was planning on commenting on it anyway if it went there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. Since we discussed this outside of the AfD talk page I would gently suggest that you refrain from commenting at the DRV in case you were thinking about it. I don't want anyone wondering if I was canvassing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like this is going to be settled at DRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed there on all counts. I can also see why he might have closed that way because a lot of the "keeps" were at the end, and that does tend to make them look larger than they actually are. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Steve is a solid admin and I hate 2nd guessing another admins judgement calls. A lot of what we deal with is not black or white and judgement calls sometimes can go either way depending on who is looking at it. But this one really does look like maybe he didn't see how lopsided the discussion was. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for making this comment about me, Tony. It means a lot to me to have my judgement appreciated. And I would certainly say the same about you, you have a lot of experience right across the Wiki and I always value your opinion in any discussions. — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank YOU for the kind words, Amakuru. It is always good to see you around and get your views, even when we disagree TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
German war effort arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, you are awesome!
Thank you for adding the event coordinator permission to my account! I will use this power well. :-) DrX (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Referenced DOY is a bad idea?
Dear Tony. I would really appreciate if you can give your point of view on this discussion about referencing the 366 DOY articles. Thanks and keep being awesome :) --Rochelimit (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words, Rochelimit. I'm not overly familiar with those pages, so think it'd be better to let others comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Accidental vandalism
Hi,
Due to my inexperience I have accidentally slightly messed up this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page. I was trying to add a statement, i.e. "statement by reissgo" by editing a chunk called "statement by (username)" but after I added my 2 cents I noticed there there was no new "statement by (username)" ready for the next editor. I have no idea how to untangle the mess I made. Sorry. Reissgo (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I fixed it for you. Next time please read the instructions, which tell you to copy and paste the section before writing your statement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi Reissgo. That was a minor flub. It happens now and then. No big deal. Vandalism is deliberate and malicious editing which this was certainly not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Your thoughts...
You were pinged, but I'm uncertain if it went through. – Conservatrix (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- It went through. I'll look at it in a bit :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
On your Italian problem...
Not a clue. I'd have suggested Miranda and CH... so... do they not cite any sources? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- CH may or may not be citing Miranda, the bibliography there on this entry isn't great. Miranda is better, actually, and thank you for reminding me to check his bibliography to see if I can find any of those books online. I've been using him as a basis for an initial list off-wiki and then confirm using Pastor and Eubel. This cardinal nephew is obnoxious in that he is in the volume of Eubel before he starts listing their nationality explicitly. Pretty easy to confirm for someone who is Ep. or Aep. [Italian city here], but for people who just have general curial roles, I've been having to find other sources.Also, if you have any general comments on Papal conclave, March 1605 and Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605, I'd appreciate it. Trying to take the former to FAC and the latter to FLC, both because they're interesting, but also per my belief that those of us who work a lot behind the scenes should also try to contribute quality content. Never done anything featured before, so advice is appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to remember to have a look tomorrow evening when I'm in a meeting being bored out of my mind. Yeah, the "check the bibliography" trick is very useful for places like Miranda/CH or Medieval Lands where the site itself isn't really reliable, but they often have pointers to the useful stuff. I'm really surprised there aren't Italian printed works on the cardinals - you'd think that the Curia would at least have something like that ... something like Fasti Ecclesiae would seem to be basic scholarship... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are printed works: Eubel is the authoritative source according to the academic I reached out to about my conclave cleanup project: [1]. The issue with this particular cardinal is twofold: first, Eubel starts listing nationality directly rather than by office held in volume IV. Innocent IX's creations are in volume III. The second issue is the one that is making sourcing difficult to find in either language without doing a manual search of the print editions/their scans: he shares the exact same name as his uncle, Pope Innocent IX, and for obvious reasons, most of the sourcing talks about Innocent IX. I reached out to one of the stewards who was Italian to see if there was any more accessible sourcing in Italian, and he came up with the same problem. Just parsing through Miranda, there seems to be some 18th century Italian works that might list something like "of Bologna". Just trying to find the right volume in Google and Archive.org is the trick. Thanks again for the reminder there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- And Miranda pointed to the right source. He was off by 10 pages, though as to what he was citing... Page 324 and not 314. Thanks for your help again! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are printed works: Eubel is the authoritative source according to the academic I reached out to about my conclave cleanup project: [1]. The issue with this particular cardinal is twofold: first, Eubel starts listing nationality directly rather than by office held in volume IV. Innocent IX's creations are in volume III. The second issue is the one that is making sourcing difficult to find in either language without doing a manual search of the print editions/their scans: he shares the exact same name as his uncle, Pope Innocent IX, and for obvious reasons, most of the sourcing talks about Innocent IX. I reached out to one of the stewards who was Italian to see if there was any more accessible sourcing in Italian, and he came up with the same problem. Just parsing through Miranda, there seems to be some 18th century Italian works that might list something like "of Bologna". Just trying to find the right volume in Google and Archive.org is the trick. Thanks again for the reminder there :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to remember to have a look tomorrow evening when I'm in a meeting being bored out of my mind. Yeah, the "check the bibliography" trick is very useful for places like Miranda/CH or Medieval Lands where the site itself isn't really reliable, but they often have pointers to the useful stuff. I'm really surprised there aren't Italian printed works on the cardinals - you'd think that the Curia would at least have something like that ... something like Fasti Ecclesiae would seem to be basic scholarship... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Tony, I'm not sure what you need here, but if it's about this chap, a search such as "Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti" 1606 gets a few results specifically about him – not that they say much. Which is probably why he doesn't have an entry in Treccani ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- All comments are welcome here! Unless of course, they are from guests talking to my valued talk page watchers like children (see above before it is archived.)Yes, I’d been trying strings with birth year and “Bologna” and none said the painfully obvious that he was in fact Italian, something semi-important to have cited on a list of electors. Maybe I’ll do a biographical stub on him now that we have some decent sourcing. Seems like an okay fellow as 16th century Italian clerics go. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why would Cluebot archive a recent thread that was posted to three hours earlier?
Damnit, Tony! I was going to post the following
Extended content
|
---|
|
and started drafting it off-wiki (since collecting the quotes was going to take more time than I had in any straight block today), only to come here with the completed reply and find that the thread had been archived. I can understand if you don't want your talk page to play host to any more of this drahma (frankly I was just happy that an issue that had been troubling me for some time had found its way here without me having to bring it to ANI, but it's still your talk page), but unless Cluebot has an anti-drahma algorithm that causes it to prematurely archive those particular threads it looks like it might have just been an error ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- See this, Tony requested immediate archival; an anti-drahma alogrithm would be nice.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, I missed that. Thanks! Anyway, an anti-drahma Al Gore-ism sounds nice in theory, but who decides what's drahma? Would we then be leaving that decision up to the machines? The real world robot apocalypse ("robocalypse"?) is likely coming soon but I'd rather not have the Wikipedia robot apocalypse (wikeschatron) precede it if possible. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x2 I set it to archive using the archive now parameter (you should see it in template notation if you look at the archives). I’m pretty patient, but I’d grown tired of explaining how Wikipedia worked to someone who knew more about policy than I did. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to use that one - grown tired or explaining how wikipedia works to someone who knows more about policy then I do. Very nice. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: Indeed! You understand, I know—unlike others, perhaps—that there's a great deal of difference in knowing policy...and understanding it :) ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- This principle also applies to knowing women and understanding them. These concepts intersect as well [2] Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Classic :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, this is now at ANI. Sad, but not really unexpected. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Classic :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- This principle also applies to knowing women and understanding them. These concepts intersect as well [2] Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: Indeed! You understand, I know—unlike others, perhaps—that there's a great deal of difference in knowing policy...and understanding it :) ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to use that one - grown tired or explaining how wikipedia works to someone who knows more about policy then I do. Very nice. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)