Template:History of the Philippines
Hello Ivanvector. I recently made a request for the reduction of this template's protection level but it got denied. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @HueMan1: I'm sorry to say I agree. Philippine history topics have been targeted by a long-term vandal for many years, and they learned years back that if they vandalize the template, it propagates to the hundred-or-so pages it appears on. If you have an edit to suggest on the template, you can request it on the template's talk page with the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: Can we at least reduce the level of protection to extended confirmed users? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
A minor issue
I wasn't sure how to address this, or whether to address it at all, but since you strike me as a thoughtful, conscientious type who would probably prefer to be apprised here it is. At ANI you recently wrote, I truly believe that EEng is a smart person, is capable of grasping how this incident was a misstep, and is capable of taking on these comments and addressing this situation more respectfully in the future. However, what EEng has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand (or that he doesn't care) is that his many followers are not so capable, and will follow his cruel example.
This idea of "followers", which others have jokingly referred to as a "brigand", is pretty risible, but asserting that such editors are incapable of grasping the seriousness of the situation and they will knowingly or unknowingly follow his bad example (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) is a bit sanctimonious and pretty insulting. I'm too thick-skinned to be offended by it personally, but I thought you might appreciate being prompted to reflect on it a bit. That's all. Regards, nagualdesign 18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Clarification about The C of E's discussion
Thank you for closing the discussion about The C of E. I was just wondering: given the lack of discussion regarding Serial Number's comments, as well as how late they came, do you think it would be appropriate if a new discussion specifically about what to do with The C of E's restrictions (i.e if they need to be extended or the status quo could remain) could be started, or has that ship sailed by now? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I'm of two minds about this. For one, it's really not fair to hang the threat of sanctions over an editor's head like was done here, not that it's any one editor's fault how this was handled. But imagine you make what you think is a reasonable ban appeal, and the discussion turns in such a way that you're now facing the prospect of even more serious sanctions, but every day for a whole month you log in to Wikipedia and find that a decision still hasn't been made. Nobody deserves that. On the other hand, it's clear from all the discussions that editors see C of E's behaviour at DYK as quite serious, especially when the topic involves living persons, and many editors (often different editors between discussions) have commented that further sanctions are warranted and/or that the current restrictions aren't preventing the harmful behaviour. I really thought about dropping a BLP ban as arbitration enforcement, but I think that's too close to being a supervote given the discussion.
- Protecting Wikipedia from publishing harmful material about living persons is of utmost importance, but The C of E is also a living person, and this whole experience has no doubt been stressful. I can't tell you not to start a discussion, but personally I would let it be for now, because the ordeal might just have knocked enough sense into C of E to behave. If it didn't, I can find the block button pretty fast. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Like I’ve asked on my talk page, do Norwich Terriers come from Norwich, or somewhere else in England? This is not explained on the Norwich Terrier article, but should be, as it gets a little confusing after some time.
Thank you.
Answermeplease11 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11
- @Answermeplease11: According to our article, they were first bred in the late 1800s as a cross which included an unnamed breed of terrier commonly used by ratters in Norfolk (see the closely related breed Norfolk Terrier), although they didn't get the name "Norwich" until they were imported to the United States after World War I. So yes, it does seem that they come from Norwich, and I think it's explained as well as it needs to be in the article.
- Thanks for your question. In the future, if you're looking for more information like this on a topic, you should make a post at the reference desk, rather than posting on article talk pages or asking individual editors. You'll get a faster and more complete response there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey Ivanvector, I believe I know what breeds make a Norwich Terrier!
Well actually, not really. 🙁
The only two breeds that I do believe make a Norwich Terrier are the Brussels Griffon and Cairn Terrier. The Brussels griffon part is the wheaten terrier, and the cairn terrier part is the body.
Well, if we do want to figure out what breeds make a Norwich terrier, we possibly have to look at these characteristics:
- Size - Body type - Temperament - Behaviour - Intelligence - Health
Give me more suggestions in the talk.
Answermeplease11 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11
Observations
Hi. Per your ANI closure, I was wondering if you could please clarify the following for me:
- "(Lugnuts) when challenged, deflects this responsibility to other reviewers or the community at large. " - Where have I ever stated or done this?
- "a right granted when one demonstrates competence to review one's own work (a responsibility Lugnuts has declined to accept)" - Where was this point made, and where did I decline to accept it?
I'd also be grateful if you could remove/hide the second part of the closure comment linking to WP:emergency as it seems crass, at least in my eyes. I don't wish to make a big deal out of this, but I thought it was important I commented on these two points post-close.
One final comment - what is the process/timespan to get the autopatrolled rights restored? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Lugnuts. I'm at work and can't respond in detail but I'll write you a better response this evening. I didn't mean for it to be crass and certainly am not casting judgement or anything like that, I just meant it as a reminder to other editors that none of us are trained nor expected to respond to mental health crises, and referring to the WMF's process. I'll remove it right away anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I promised to respond yesterday but the day got away from me; my apologies.
- First off, when I close a discussion I try my best to reflect the views expressed by the participants without bias, while considering how strongly the various arguments are rooted in policy and convention, although of course it's my own words. This discussion was difficult because there were a lot of participants, several proposals, several tangents, references to past discussions, and many comments that had no grounding in policy and were just editors' opinions on how things should be, plus an inappropriate close and a reopening that shouldn't have happened in the way that it did. That all led to my closing comments being unconventionally long. I also tend to be wordy, just ask anyone who's ever received an email from me.
- The discussion was closed inappropriately around 1 April, and while that close was clearly inappropriate, I don't agree with Swarm reopening it a full eight days later, as though the discussion could just resume at that point. I took everything said after that with a grain of salt, but I put a lot of weight on your exchange with GirthSummit where you were obviously recognizing the concerns raised earlier.
- On both of your points, it's not so much that you said exactly this, not that someone said "these are your responsibilities" and you said "no they're not", that clearly didn't happen. But early in the discussion you responded to some criticisms of the pace of your page creations with a challenge that if there were problems with your creations then other editors should point them out, fix them, or go through deletion processes themselves, and several editors called you out on that. A specific concern expressed by many participants was that you were creating pages too quickly for any reasonable review to happen, not by yourself and especially not by any normal editorial process as your creations skip the patrol queue. You can see there are a number of comments supporting a rate limit on your article creations, a requirement to have all your new articles pass through AfC, or an outright page creation ban, all because you're creating articles that fail third-party verification.
- In my opinion, you're correct that the SNGs as written allow this, and I said so in the cricket discussion. However, I get the distinct sense from this discussion more than the previous ones that the community is exhausted by your reliance on that when you rapidly create many thousands of articles, when so many people see problems with the SNGs and have pointed this out to you. On one hand it's not fair to put the responsibility for poorly written guidelines entirely on you, but on the other hand it's not fair to be repeatedly told that mass-creation of poor quality articles puts undue burden on the community (my words) yet continue to do it because it's technically allowed. You were even continuing to do it while sanctions were being discussed for that exact activity, and some commenters found that disrespectful (my word again).
- In the end, I landed on removing
autopatrolled
but taking no further action, because I felt that was the easiest way to reflect the community's desire to review your new articles while still letting you actually create them, and not setting up a more severe sanction for activity that isn't expressly forbidden. - As for timeline to restore that userright, I purposely do not set time limits on such things without a good reason. This isn't meant to be a prison sentence, it's meant to halt disruption (sorry I don't have a better word for it) until such time as you can demonstrate it's no longer necessary. I mentioned your comments to GirthSummit late in the discussion - I think it's highly in your favour that you (eventually) acknowledged some of the problems, and certainly to your credit that you committed to replacing the unreliable source you used for the 4,000-or-so Turkish places articles you created. I don't think you should ask for the userright back until that's done, at least, but I really can't say how much longer. Several people suggested this information would be better off as a list, and I think you should consider that - remember that you can create several thousand redirects to such lists and generally nobody will say a word, just don't be Neelix. I think if you have any plans to mass-create stubs in any other topics which are little more than statistical information, it will work greatly in your favour if you discuss it at the relevant WikiProject before starting the work. These are just suggestions for things you might do to demonstrate you're listening to the community's feedback when you request the userright back, maybe along with working the NPP and AFC queues as more evidence of your review work.
- I'm starting to write in circles I think and I should stop, but I hope you find some of this helpful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the response. It seems that WP has shifted its focus to saying things are "poor quality" (your words) over and above notabilty (my words). And rather than take action on a rewrite of policy and/or SNGs in realtion to stubs, the target has become those who create stubs in the first place, and make them the scapegoat. EVERYTHING I've created has been within the terms of the required notabilty for the subject area, which is a binary meets/does not meet, whereas "poor quality" in itself is such a poor quality term it becomes vexatious.
- I've created a few dozen stubs since the user-rights were removed. All of them have been reviewed, with no issues. As of typing this, I believe a couple are still in the queue to be assessed. The irony being that the "burden on the community" (your words) has now moved to people who review that queue. Without trying to single out another editor, stuff like this and this goes through with no review. Are those examples of good quality or poor quality?
- I hate to be even more cynical than I normally am, but working the NPP and AFC queues smacks of being setup to fail. I can imagine the vultures circling now if I made the wrong choice on a review or two. "Who did that?" "It was Lugnuts." "Right, take him to ANI for WP:DE and a block!" Finally, and most importantly, my time here is spent on areas that interest me. If people want to put little tags on my work, which adds to other backlogs, then that's their prerogative. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)