1 |
Please comment on Talk:Alcohol flush reaction
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alcohol flush reaction. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold fusion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cold fusion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
redirect Justina Pelletier
Hi, Just wondered was there any content on the separate page for Justina Pelletier before it was merged/redirected?
Thanks Jjk (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC) (Jjk)
@Jjk: None that I can easily recall at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Shootings in the United States
Template:Shootings in the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. John from Idegon (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Myofascial meridians
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Myofascial meridians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mensuration
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mensuration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pectinidae
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pectinidae. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:ISO 8601
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of nearest exoplanets
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of nearest exoplanets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions),
ThaddeusB (submissions),
WikiRedactor (submissions),
Figureskatingfan (submissions),
Yellow Evan (submissions),
Prism (submissions) and
Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.
There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.
There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Brother 16 (U.S.), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Night Football. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel.
Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles.
Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Notice
![]() | Please read this notification carefully: A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy, such as Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dental amalgam toxicity. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain?
I just saw your comment on the Gamergate talk page about "not taking matters into our own hands." I asked you about it there but it may not be an appropriate place to discuss what you're proposing. I'm really curious about why you think it's inappropriate to report an illegal link that's posted on WP. I'm quite sure that WP doesn't ask its editors for a vow of confidentiality regarding material we encounter while doing our work on the encyclopedia. The only activity that does involve such a vow to ignore reports of wrongdoing that I know of is the Catholic Seal of the Confessional, and that brought the Church widespread condemnation and serious legal consequences when it resulted in them protecting child molesters from authorities. Are you suggesting that, for example, if a link is published to a child pornography repository in the U.S. which includes the owner's name, WP editors are somehow duty-bound not to inform the authorities about it? Can you support that with appropriate WP policy links? ReynTime (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ReynTime: Well, it gotta Hatted since apparently the article got taken down according to another editor. Either way, let us discuss the issue at hand. I will start by stating that your claim that it was an illegal link is questionable on the grounds that it has not been clearly explained why you have claimed it to be illegal. If you truly believe it to be illegal, then why did you only contact the college and not the authorities if it is indeed hosting content that is illegal. As far as I know, the link was not and has not been reported to the police since according to and implied in your edit, you only contacted Amherst and its staff and you note that the student will potentially be getting "...a very harsh lesson in what ethics in journalism is actually about..." instead of mentioning that you contacted the authorities and the college and a relevant message on that. The only illegal act that has been mention so far, and I am presently doubting that you are implying a connection between the two, is the discussion on child molesters and child pornography. If you would like present your claim that it is an illegal act, then please detail how we can call it an illegal act or how you believe it so since this is a serious allegation that you are making. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- As for the remainder, I felt that we as Wikipedia users were getting involved in an issue that we should remain neutral about. At the time I saw the discussion, the link had already been retracted by an editor and the discussion was practically decided as not including it without further discussion, which from what I can see would clearly have been heavily sided against as not including it. At the time, you seemed to be taking issue with Avono and calling for an ArbCom discussion for a topic ban, which is a serious claim. It felt to me that your comment that I have linked above seemed to be more about teaching a lesson and getting involved in the issue than it was about a reaction to what was said. You are correct that you can report it outside of WP as a private citizen, but I request that you look at the issue from my PoV and see why I might have the reaction that I did. To conclude, I have a few questions that I would like to ask you. What benefit to the article or to the talk page would it be to publically declare what actions you were taking off-wiki? If you felt as strongly as you seem to, then what benefit was it to only contact the college in this matter? You ask about actions that are illegal and that the police would investigate in your comment above. If there is illegal content, then we should report it. Do you believe that the article by this person contain illegal material or was illegal in a similar manner? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, maybe you're not from the U.S., but here we have two justice systems, the criminal and the civil. The criminal justice system involves crimes against the state and that's where the cops and the district attorney and so on come in. The civil justice system settles questions of wrongdoing between two private parties (which can be individuals, groups, organizations, corporations) where the state has no abiding interest; the police are not involved, the issue is legislated in an entirely different set of courts, and both parties have to hire private counsel if they wish to be represented. (In criminal matters the state provides the defendant with counsel if the defendant can't afford it.) Libel/Defamation is a civil, not a criminal matter, so the cops would have nothing to do with it -- it would be settled between the two private parties in the issue, which in this case would be Amherst College and Zoe Quinn. I informed the college because it was their student newspaper, and if the article was published without their knowledge and consent (as was the case) then they were unknowingly being exposed to legal liability by this student. In such cases it is considered ethical to inform the possibly-unaware offender of the problem and give them a chance to set things to rights without calling out the lawyers immediately, because honest mistakes happen and getting involved in a civil suit is always an expensive hassle that's best avoided if possible.
- You can look up the legal definitions of libel and defamation for the United States with a Google search to inform yourself of what is considered a civil offense in these areas. Broadly put, knowingly publishing lies about a person that causes damage to their professional and/or private lives is a civil offense and if found guilty, a party can be forced to pay quite large sums of money as damages, depending on what was written, the amount of damage that was done, how malicious/negligent the act of publication was, and so on. Incidentally, the only possible relief you can get from a civil suit is money; you can't go to jail from it or be put to death or anything, that's reserved for criminal matters. Since the only possible relief is money, it's common in such a civil matter to spread the legal net as widely as possible -- so, if Zoe Quinn decided to file a civil suit, which she had abundant grounds to do, her lawyer would probably suggest that in addition to suing the freshman writer, who might or might not have money to pay, she should also sue Amherst for not appropriately supervising him in his role as a student journalist associated with the college, since Amherst College has very deep pockets indeed. This is why Amherst would act quickly to remove obviously libelous material that was associated with them -- if they were found liable of supporting the student's act of defamation, they would be on the hook for a very large amount of money. Enough to set Zoe Quinn up for life, quite possibly.
- Contacting the college to let them know what their student was doing so that they could intervene was the kindest possible action to take; the longer the web page stayed up, the greater their liability. By getting it taken down promptly, Amherst College is in the clear. THe student himself is still quite possibly in hot water if Zoe Quinn decides she wants to go after him because that page was archived and is "out there" on the Internet, so her lawyers could argue that real damage has already been done and that the student should have to pay for it. But since it was up less than a day, the amount of damages he could be asked to pay is probably fairly limited. That kid was really playing with fire there.
- Oh, and at the time the discussion took place the page was still up; it was not taken down until several hours after my last post there, and well before you added your comment.
- I hope that clears up the legal issues for you. ReynTime (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ReynTime: That stings a bit since I would have taken a question on if I was from the US first. I was trying to make a subtle point that you might be considering what is illegal to be what is not criminal but still unlawful, though it seems that you have that covered. (Not to mention that you brought up illegal activities at the start of this discussion and I was more asking for a discussion on the article and not a discussion on law.)
- Anyways, I will take that as the question was answered. I would like to note that I do not consider it an illegal link, but I will also note that you do consider it to be an unlawful link or something which is not criminal but possibly unlawful. In addition, I can now clearly see your side of the issue. From my point, I did not understand at the time that you were attempting to assist Amherst, though I am not sure if I am fully comfortable with the way is was done. I am also not sure if this was the best course of action, though I can concluded it is likely one that might have reduced the liability of the parties, though that is for the law. I will say that I would doubt that the case would be as solid as what you seem to be describing, but I will also say that it would be for the law to decide and not myself along with the fact that it appears to be your belief that it would likely result in issues for Amherst.
- (Speaking of issues, since it does seem to be reasonable in your opinion for action to be taken, would you like to have Amherst to make a request for the Google cache archive to be pulled or updated? I ask since you have already taken action and since we did not discuss the article in the end.)
- To begin to conclude this, you might note from my contributions that I post at odd or unusual hours. This is because I do not have a fixed schedule so that was the first opportunity for me to read the talk page and respond. I did not have a chance to read the article at that time since it was retracted, all I had was what was said in the discussion and your comments was the one I reacted strongly to, though you did mention ArbCom. (Also, if it was libel like you have said, then I have to accept that point since I have not read the article yet since I wanted to hear your side.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a good thing that the archive is out there but I don't know what the legalities are around automatic archival storage of websites, and I don't know who I would contact. It would be better for Ms. Quinn and her lawyer to chase down the traces of the article if she thinks it's worth the effort because the archive sites are more likely to listen to her wishes on the matter. Amherst was responsive because they risked getting named in a lawsuit but I think an automatic archive site has very little or no legal liability for material they have archived so they would be less motivated to act. I do know that in practical terms it's very difficult, frustrating, and time-consuming to get something removed from the Internet entirely after it's been archived -- it's actually a pretty big deal and you can read a little about the problem here.
- I hope that clears up the legal issues for you. ReynTime (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- And you are right, the solidity of the case wouldn't be my concern. It's considered the duty of responsible citizens to report suspected illegal issues when they see them happening, and then the people with expertise and standing can actually sort things out (cops/judges for criminal matters, lawyers for civil ones). Basically, the cops would rather you report a suspected break-in that turns out to be a neighbor who forgot his keys then have you ignore what looked like a break-in and have robbers get away with everything. Similarly, if you spot a civil violation, it's usually considered more ethical to let people know than to say "Eh, none of my business" and walk away. You don't need a "solid" case to report a suspected issue; you just need a reasonable suspicion that something is amiss and needs attention.
- I can provide an archive link to the article in question via email if you want to assess it for yourself. The statements in it were egregiously false; the student claimed he had "proof" of several events that have been thoroughly debunked for months now, and even made up some things apparently out of whole cloth -- as in saying that Zoe Quinn got a "follower" of hers to "hack and destroy a rival", which is the grossest possible mischaracterization of what occurred between her and The Fine Young Capitalists. I don't want to put the link here as linking to libelous material directly on WP is definitely bad (which is how this all got started) but I could email it to you, or you could track it down on one of the subReddits devoted to the Gamergate mess as I think they both have threads on the issue. ReynTime (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ReynTime: The right to be forgotten is something that I really dislike due to how the EU implemented it and is trying to affect all domains, but that is another issue for another place and time. That aside, I will say that at the very least this was a beneficial talk in my view. I can understand where your point is coming from; I am just a bit conflicted if that is the path to take, though I feel that you have a path. As for the archive, I was able to get one already from the Google Archive link. Granted, it is easy since it just need a simple guess to what the URL would be. Since the page has been taken down, I am not sure if the crawler will ever come back to that page, so it might become a permanent cache or something, which might be an issue for someone. Back on track, I never read the article at all since I wanted to hear what your thoughts were, like in the third section of your recent comment, and see if I could understand your point. Granted, this likely went better because of it instead proceeding to the discussion of the law since it made it clear what you view was. So, I would like to thank you for that and the rest of this discussion. I will say that you do make a very good point about not linking it here, so I guess that this will likely be where our discussion ends. Let me know if you want to discussion anything else. :) Thanks again, --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can provide an archive link to the article in question via email if you want to assess it for yourself. The statements in it were egregiously false; the student claimed he had "proof" of several events that have been thoroughly debunked for months now, and even made up some things apparently out of whole cloth -- as in saying that Zoe Quinn got a "follower" of hers to "hack and destroy a rival", which is the grossest possible mischaracterization of what occurred between her and The Fine Young Capitalists. I don't want to put the link here as linking to libelous material directly on WP is definitely bad (which is how this all got started) but I could email it to you, or you could track it down on one of the subReddits devoted to the Gamergate mess as I think they both have threads on the issue. ReynTime (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
- We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
- In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
- The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Medicine navs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Priefer, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Ebola virus disease in Nigeria
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220626174451im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Ebola virus disease in Nigeria, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Jamie Tubers (talk · contribs) - Not sure what happened, but I am going to contest why you think my redirect is "introducing inappropriate pages" as stated in the notice. This seems to be in very bad faith and I would like an explanation on your actions to understand. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Mike Priefer has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
—Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olympic Games scandals and controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Jenkins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
![]() | Hello, Super Goku V. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) |
Nomination for deletion of Template:Eighth generation game handhelds
Template:Eighth generation game handhelds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
![]() | Hello, Super Goku V. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
Notice
A redirect you recently nominated for deletion is now an AFD. You can comment here. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: The controversy regarding Billy Mitchell
I'm not saying that he isn't controversial, just that Billy Mitchell himself isn't a "controversy." Trivialist (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's probably no good way to categorize them properly without creating lots of categories that only have a few items ("Games involved in video game controversies," "People involved with video game controversies," etc.), so unless someone creates a page specifically about Mitchell's controversies, keeping his article (and the others) in Category:Video game controversies is probably the best solution for now. Trivialist (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josh Hader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
![]() | Hello, Super Goku V. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |
Do your research before you edit.
You recently undid the john singleton death date when there were MULTIPLE stories about his death and they had scheduled the memorial service. Do your research. You do more harm than good. Jeffery Thomas 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Talk Page Blanking
Hi Super Goku V, I wanted to let you know that our WP:BLANKING policy says that editors—including anonymous/IP editors—are able to remove almost anything on their Talk pages. You should not reinstate messages as you did here. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies. I was under the incorrect presumption that Talk page comments and warnings could not be removed, except for in specific circumstances like a rare redaction edit. Regardless, thank you for the correction. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Restoring talk page comments
Your understanding of talk page policy is as absurd as your other comments. Users may remove comments on their own talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. Try something like that again and we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. This is your only warning. You may not be capable of understanding this, but I know more about Wikipedia policies than you do. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC) @75.191.40.148: I accept you warning on talk page policy and apologize for what ended up being an assumption. Though, I am not too surprised that you know quite a bit about Wikipedia policies. Regardless, I do have a question for you: What are you referring to by "is as absurd as your other comments?" Are you referring to an edit summary or something? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
Hello, I'm 75.191.40.148. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2019 in American music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you wish to have those two albums specifically cited, then we should be good now. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Inside the Actors Studio, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- What needs sources is that Sheen and Sutherland are "first ever" and "second ever". Please read WP:V. Since you seem to have a deficient understanding of Wikipedia policies, let me suggest that you read WP:HARASS before you continue following me around making nitpicking and inappropriate reverts of my edits. Your edit history has plenty of evidence of harassment (and remember, harassment doesn't have to be making inflammatory comments directly at someone; it can be as subtle as following someone around making inappropriate reverts just so you can let the other person know "I'm following you"). Inappropriately restoring talk page comments; reverting removal of unsourced information without providing a source; removing legitimate tags. You're on record stating that you're "looking into" my edits. Looking at others edits is acceptable. Following someone around as if you're the self-appointed wikipolice so you can make inappropriate reverts is entirely unacceptable. You've been around for five years, so maybe you do understand the policies but can't resist harassing me. That's two strikes for you. Once again, the next time this happens we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. I'm sure both of us have better things to do. I certainly do, but if your top priority is harassing IPs because of some sort of vendetta, then you seriously need to rethink why you are here. Let me suggest that you walk away and stay away from me. And that includes not arguing with me or making excuses on this talk page, my talk page, or any other talk page or edit summary. I'll do the same for you, unless you continue the harassment. Just stay away from me, and I'll not pursue this matter any further. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- @75.191.40.148: - Hello, 75.191.40.148. I see that you are not seeing things from the other side, which is completely my fault for not saying something sooner, so I would like to begin to amend that by walking you through the issues and the timeline of this series of events from my side. I went to the article, 2019 American League Division Series to see the composite line score prior to Game 5 of the Astros and the as I was nervous over the Astros being knocked out of the series. Sadly, the composite was not even there, so I decided that it would likely be better if it had one through the first four games. I never got to start it as when I looked into history to see if it had been removed for any reason, I saw your edit and the edit summary "Unnecessary spam that adds nothing to the article. And it's not in previous ALDS articles." Now that stung as odd, because the 2017 series was notable for being the first year that sponsors could buy the naming rights to the postseason series, and also the Astros winning the series which helped me to remember that, except the Wild Card Games which started in 2018. So, I checked and all of the 2017 and 2018 MLB postseason articles still had the sponsor name listed right in the lead. (Except the 2017 Wild Card Games for what I said prior.) Additionally, there are various articles across the Wiki that have the sponsor in the lede or even directly in the article name. So I decided to repair the removed content by researching the official sponsorships and, after finding some sources, I went to the 2019 NLDS article to get the proper formatting for the lede so that the articles would match. And I found that it was removed from the NLDS article as well with nearly the same edit summary. Now realizing that this is going to be multiple edits, I just clicked on your contributions to see what else needed to be fixed, which ended up being just the 2019 World Series article as the 2019 Wild Card Game articles were not touched and the 2019 ALCS and 2019 NLCS lacked the sponsorship details due to not being announced on the same day as the others. So, I was finally ready to edit the articles, but I saw what I thought was a problem when I saw your contributions, which was that you had remove content from your talk page, which I mistakenly believe to be against Wiki rules as it was on more smaller, independent wikis. Additionally, I also saw that you had made two separate replies to an IP address with warning templates, one of which was using the highest level for that template message while also reverting one of their edits with the summary "unsourced and botched formatting." (Emphasis mine) The problems with the revert were easy for me to see as you only removed the content that they added without sources, despite the fact that the number of albums for all of the months well exceeds 100 and that there was no actual formatting issues with their edit. So, I ended up looking at the edits made by both yourself and the other IP address to find that there was a common thread to all of this; the sponsorship portion in the lead of the MLB Playoff articles. The August edits by the other IP address had added the YouTube TV sponsorship for the 2019 World Series among other improvements to the article. Your edits removed them with the similar edit summary to the ones noted above and was followed up with a somewhat strict warning. Then, on the next edit by the other IP, you removed their edit and gave them the most serious edit warning possible for an unsourced template. As you yourself have pointed out above, I followed that IP's edits to User talk:Oshwah where they seemed to honestly believe that they were going to get blocked from editing the Wiki and was calling on another user for help. So, I tried to let the IP user know that they were not in actual trouble given the circumstances.
- So far from my perspective, I see more that a few edits that have removed content that has been accepted on other articles, excessive warning of another IP user, and multiple misleading edit summaries. Thus, I first mostly undid your revision to 2019 in American music. Mostly, as I fixed the spelling mistake and moved it to the October section as I did not realize that night that there was an October vinyl release and a December CD release. (Additionally, this is why I said that the only mistakes were minor.) Then, I went through most of the 2019 MLB postseason articles and made edits to them to get them to conform. (Of which, a few are a little off in format, but that is for another day.) On the 10th, I found that I had goofed with regards to your talk page and replied to User:Woodroar to apologize. I also went to reply to you as well with an apology and with my concerns, but I regretfully decided against doing so since I figured that all should have been settled. At least up until the next day, when you reverted the changes to 2019 in American music with a complaint about the edit summary. I decided to just give up on the issue despite the above and made the edit with a very specific edit summary so that there would be no confusion this time. Again, that should have been the end of it, but I made my edit on the 12th and had seen your edits to the David Cross and Angela Gots articles from the 11th which also looked similarly problematic, but I decided to review them later. So, for the fifth day of this sequence, I check both and saw more problems. For the Angela Gots article, you claimed that the IP user had made a "nonsense edit." However, that was false as the IP user was trying to added a role for Angela Gots to the article and misunderstood how to do so. I undid the edit and amended it with the proper formatting and required episode so that they could get credit for their edit. As for the David Cross article, you added the Template:criticism section to the article without explaining what concern that you have over the section. In fact, you only edited the main article with an edit summary of just "crit sec" and never addressed any potential issues with the article on the talk page. I was currently waiting to see if you would add a reason to the talk page on your own, but since you have not, I have decided to pointed it out here so that you will hopefully do so within the next week or two. At this point, with multiple issues, I decided to check out your edits the next day to see if there were more issues and I saw your edit to the Inside the Actors Studio article, which had no explanation over what citations were needed. I ended up agreeing with your first two tags, but I could not figure out the issue with the last two, especially in light of the fact that all of the guests had been linked to their respective articles and that the proof on those articles should have been enough to not warrant a citation. In the end, you disagreed and clarified the issue along with starting this section and bring us here. (While which we are to here; to my understand the CN tags should be directly after the "first guest ever" and "second guest ever" and are still questionably needed for a note.)
- Honestly, I should have talked to you about all of this back on either the 9th or the 10th so that you would see how your edits were being viewed. However, I decided to give you time to see if the issues with the edits went away; to which I found that they still occurred in a few of your edits. I will note that there does seem to be a positive change in that your warnings to other users is starting from the lowest level warning templates, which is a plus. At the least, I do hope that by pointing out how other editors are seeing your actions will help you to understand why I felt the need to first do the wait and see approach regarding these issues before I intervened with your edits. Going forward, since you view my reversions as inappropriate, I will refrain from making edits to your edits when possible, but I would like to let you know if there are problems on your talk page about an edit, just as you have to mine, because I do feel that you deserve at least a chance to make a change, especially given that this is the first time I have address these issues from my viewpoint. If you wish to disagree with this in part or in whole, or even go in a different direction, then feel free to let me know below or to ping me on your talk page instead if you wish. Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- You apparently don't agree with me that the best thing for you to do is walk away and leave me alone without trying to make excuses for yourself. You were harassing me, and there's plenty of evidence that will always be in your edit history; and your attempts to make excuses doesn't mitigate that inappropriate behavior and policy violation, especially trying to shift the blame to me. Accordingly, this is my last message to you on your talk page, and my last communication with you unless/until we take up any further harassment at WP:ANI. Editors like you are the most dangerous kind of editor on Wikipedia, and exactly why editors like me decide not to register. Outright vandals are easily detected and dealt with you. Editors like you, on the other hand, pose as constructive editors so you can fly under the radar undetected for a while, all the while dispensing damage to the project because of your self-righteous attitude that you have some sort of God-given right to police IPs without regard to policy, I suppose for some sort of misguided ego boost. BTW, feel free to restore a version of the external link in the Carroll article that you found. Otherwise stay away from me and never message me on my talk page; that includes not responding to this message. Final warning. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- 75.191.40.148, denying me the ability to reply is considered inappropriate to me. I am not going to silence myself regarding the situation and I am not going to silence yourself either. Users should be free to talk about things and admit what went right and what went wrong. I have shown you what has occurred from my side and I disagree with harassing you. The reason I have made my edits to those article is because of the errors that I saw in them and their edit summaries. Now, have I made mistakes? Yes, I have. I did not know that you could blank a talk page, I should have talked to you sooner about this, I should have just asked you why you felt that the CN tags were needed on your talk page regardless of if it would be removed or not, and I have apparently caused you some distress in all of this for which I do apologize for. 75.191.40.148, you do make good edits to the Wiki. The only reason we have gotten here is because of mistakes on both sides. To my knowledge, you are the first IP user that I have had to directly communicate with in years and I seem to So, I apologize if the mistakes I have made with regards to this have caused you to believe that I am trying to police you. I have only been trying to correct what I saw were errors on the various articles. But, I do see that you view what I have done negatively, so I will refrain from interactions with yourself outside of talk pages per your concerns. If you wish to continue to talk then that is ok and if you wish not to, then that is ok as well. I do hope that you will consider my points just as I have considered yours. Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not silencing you. I'm telling you to stay off my talk page and stop making inappropriate reverts of my edits. If you want to violate those policies, go right ahead; I'll sett you at ANI. I've done that with arrogant editors before, and I want hesitate a second to do it with you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- 75.191.40.148, denying me the ability to reply is considered inappropriate to me. I am not going to silence myself regarding the situation and I am not going to silence yourself either. Users should be free to talk about things and admit what went right and what went wrong. I have shown you what has occurred from my side and I disagree with harassing you. The reason I have made my edits to those article is because of the errors that I saw in them and their edit summaries. Now, have I made mistakes? Yes, I have. I did not know that you could blank a talk page, I should have talked to you sooner about this, I should have just asked you why you felt that the CN tags were needed on your talk page regardless of if it would be removed or not, and I have apparently caused you some distress in all of this for which I do apologize for. 75.191.40.148, you do make good edits to the Wiki. The only reason we have gotten here is because of mistakes on both sides. To my knowledge, you are the first IP user that I have had to directly communicate with in years and I seem to So, I apologize if the mistakes I have made with regards to this have caused you to believe that I am trying to police you. I have only been trying to correct what I saw were errors on the various articles. But, I do see that you view what I have done negatively, so I will refrain from interactions with yourself outside of talk pages per your concerns. If you wish to continue to talk then that is ok and if you wish not to, then that is ok as well. I do hope that you will consider my points just as I have considered yours. Sincerely, --Super Goku V (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- You apparently don't agree with me that the best thing for you to do is walk away and leave me alone without trying to make excuses for yourself. You were harassing me, and there's plenty of evidence that will always be in your edit history; and your attempts to make excuses doesn't mitigate that inappropriate behavior and policy violation, especially trying to shift the blame to me. Accordingly, this is my last message to you on your talk page, and my last communication with you unless/until we take up any further harassment at WP:ANI. Editors like you are the most dangerous kind of editor on Wikipedia, and exactly why editors like me decide not to register. Outright vandals are easily detected and dealt with you. Editors like you, on the other hand, pose as constructive editors so you can fly under the radar undetected for a while, all the while dispensing damage to the project because of your self-righteous attitude that you have some sort of God-given right to police IPs without regard to policy, I suppose for some sort of misguided ego boost. BTW, feel free to restore a version of the external link in the Carroll article that you found. Otherwise stay away from me and never message me on my talk page; that includes not responding to this message. Final warning. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
April 2020 WikiProject NASCAR newsletter
![]() | |
---|---|
| |
WikiProject News
How to Help WikiProject NASCAR
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on April 26. |
Article Developments
|
Picture of the Month ![]() Casey Atwood, behind the wheel of a FitzBradshaw Racing entry, during a pit stop in the Little Trees 300 at Charlotte Motor Speedway in fall 2003. |
The Harley J. Earl Trophy is the trophy presented to the winner of the premier – and season-opening – event of the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), the Daytona 500. It is named after influential automobile designer Harley Earl, who served as the second commissioner of NASCAR. Earl has been known as the so-called "father of the Corvette" and designer of the Firebird I prototype that adorns the trophy. The trophy is kept on display at the Daytona International Speedway, while a small replica is given to each Daytona 500 winner. (Read more...) |
New Images |
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
June 2020 WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 WikiProject NASCAR newsletter
![]() | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
WikiProject News
None. How to Help WikiProject NASCAR
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 8:00 PM Eastern on July 30. | ||
Article Developments
|
Picture of the Month ![]() Jeff Gordon's 2007 racecar. | ||
Shawna Robinson (born November 30, 1964) is an American retired professional stock car racing driver. She was a competitor in all three of NASCAR's national touring series, as well as the ARCA Bondo/Mar-Hyde Series and the Charlotte/Daytona Dash Series. Robinson is one of 16 women to participate in the NASCAR Cup Series, and one of three females to race in the sports' premier event, the Daytona 500.(Read more...) |
New Images | ||
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Reply
Hi Goku, thanks for editing the timeline pages. --Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Chinyen Lu: No problem. If you need help in the future, feel free to ask me and I can try to help. (Admittedly, I likely have a below-average understanding of Tennis, though I do have some understanding of technical edits like how that timeline works.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. yeah, it's hard for me to edit this complicated charts, coz I'm not good at it. Thanks for help in the future. Happy cooperation.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Chinyen Lu: I would suggest looking at Template:Simple horizontal timeline for the documentation of the template. It helps explain how the timeline is being created and might help give a bit of understanding at what is specifically going on. In addition, feel free to make a small change to Template:Novak Djokovic 2019 career timeline and then just hit the preview button to see what changed. Repeatedly doing that will likely give more understanding to what each line does and how it functions. (Though, make sure not to save the edits or else they will need to be reverted.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, the Template:Novak Djokovic 2019 career timeline had edit accomplished at the end of last year, and I did the wrong edit several days ago, but I didn't know how to udo the previous version. It's very good that you shared the template, I'll check and learn, that's great.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Chinyen Lu: I would suggest looking at Template:Simple horizontal timeline for the documentation of the template. It helps explain how the timeline is being created and might help give a bit of understanding at what is specifically going on. In addition, feel free to make a small change to Template:Novak Djokovic 2019 career timeline and then just hit the preview button to see what changed. Repeatedly doing that will likely give more understanding to what each line does and how it functions. (Though, make sure not to save the edits or else they will need to be reverted.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. yeah, it's hard for me to edit this complicated charts, coz I'm not good at it. Thanks for help in the future. Happy cooperation.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the image on Kenosha protests
Since you seemed to have missed it, there were extensive discussions that plainly failed to reach a consensus for the image Lightburst recently added to the article (you acted as though it was removed without discussion, which was untrue.) The discussions you participated in were a much smaller spin-off from that discussion. Unless you want to argue that that older discussion reached a consensus to add Lightburst's image, you should stop adding it to the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Thank you for that link as I was starting to wind down my edits to the subject as a whole and only resumed because of your edits last night. (No one had mentioned the Failed verification tag according to my search bar until I created a new subject.) I see that it is the one where Ergo Sum thought that the image was used elsewhere and I had asked if they were sure as if it was, there was a copyright problem. (Ergo Sum's response reassured me that it was likely that similar pictures or footage used by other organizations and not a 1:1 picture.) After my concerns were addressed, I can see now that the conversation continued on afterwards and did reach a conclusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Sorry for having to ping you a second time, but I do feel that it is warranted after reviewing things and I would rather talk here where it is a bit more private that there where it is public before I resume discussing things on the talk page. In regards to this edit, you said that
it appears to originate on blogs and similar unreliable sources, so we can't really use it
despite specifically mentioning that the user who uploaded it was the one who added it. From my Point of View, you made a claim whether you wanted to or not that the image came from elsewhere before Lightburst added it to Wikimedia Commons, despite evidence existing that Lightburst took the photos and had not stolen them from somewhere else. If you believed that to have been true, then you should have tagged the images for speedy deletion as that would be a copyright violation. There was also a prior discussion to the above that talked about the photos that Lightburst took and Lightburst even asked Dlthewave, a reviewer, for their opinion and Dlthewave gave an example and said the example they gave would work or a similar image. (Lightburst ended up going the similar image route, which seems to have set off the debate.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC) - Additionally, I would like to say that the route you took to remove the image wasn't proper in my view. Yes, that is a harsh choice of words, but I believe it is needed because of the edit yesterday where you added the failed verification tag. If the discussion you referred to had a consensus to remove the image, then you should have removed the image instead of claiming that the image had failed verification. By doing that, it set off a different discussion because I could not figure out how the tag applied and I deferred to you because you are a reviewer. Lightburst ended up replying first and removing the tag, though you ended up responding to that by then removing the image. If the image had been removed at that point, then it could have been discussed better on the talk page over why it was done and the consensus point could have been discussed, but instead there was confusion over first the tag and then your edits. That is why I dislike editing consensus pages; it is somewhat exhausting to do and sometimes mistakes are made like I did by reverting Guettarda as from my Point of View, they were expressing their opinion on the just started discussion and then enforcing it on the article. (And yes, I know that Guettarda has a sysop permission which should be above a reviewer, but it did feel that they were stating their opinion on the talk page and then editing the article. That felt wrong to me due to my mistaken Point of View and so I reverted them despite being a normal user.) I do get that you have an issue with the image and the reasoning for why. I also know that things have been contentious on the article, not helped by the brigading that Dr-Bracket thankfully discovered the location from during the move request. But, I do not feel that the right steps nor words were used to have the image be replaced with a better one that does represents the protests better and that is why I writing this second message. I hope that these words help clarify things from my viewpoint. (Note: Feel free to respond to this, I just didn't want to continue over there before writing this out over here.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is so complicated. My concerns over the accuracy / providence of the image were separate from the larger discussion over whether it was an appropriate image for the lead. I was quicker to add the tag (as soon as I noticed there might be a problem) because adding such tags is a relatively lightweight action as opposed to reverting a prominent addition to the lead, but I always intended to remove the image unless the direction of the other discussions drastically changed direction to show consensus for it - adding the tag was just "this will also be something that has to be addressed, if we end up keeping it." I wouldn't have created a separate talk page section to discuss that concern, but someone else did. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: I guess part of this stems from my confusion over the order of events. I thought that you had consensus against using the image first, then tagged it before removing it, but it was the other way around and two separate events. Sorry for that bit of confusion as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since it is somewhat difficult to be clear over text, I created that separate talk page section because my browser did not find a mention of "Failed verification" when I searched. Checking the talk page daily is something that gets exhausting quickly while managing things outside Wikipedia and I didn't realize that conversation when farther than it did. (At the time I last commented, most of the discussion was in support and my involvement was limited to double checking with Ergo Sum on if the image came from somewhere else or not, as I was concerned that there might have been a copyrighted image on the article despite the two conversations from August 28th to September 1st implying that they were personally taken.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Anyways, I do have a question now since you did not respond to it and I have tried to figure it out. According to WP:OI, there is support for editors to upload their own images to Commons and that it isn't original research unless they illustrate unpublished ideas or arguments. When we were talking about the image (or both the image and caption) as failing verification, I was confused why you brought up WP:OR given the prior two discussions and that the issue was due to the failed verification tag. Was bring up WP:OR more the reasoning for the tag and that looking at the cited articles was the issue or was it more regarding the image itself? I ask because you comment never really touched upon the reasoning for the tag. (If this doesn't make sense I am trying to ask which part of the image (or both image and caption) failed Template:Failed verification as the only real thing that is mentioned their is
the source does not support what is contained in the article
and I am unsure if it original research to say that the video did provide support and was a free use version of what was shown in the source.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You shouldn't worry about reverting someone just because they have access to a few extra tools. That's not the way this community is supposed to work - you should feel comfortable going toe-to-toe with anyone, as long as you're civil and abide by policy. I know it doesn't always work that way, and we sometimes tolerate too much from the people who we're supposed to hold to a higher standard, but I'm not ok with that, and if someone thinks I'm overstepping, I would prefer if they called me out. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- (Sorry for the notification; I thought Template:Ping was the only way to ping a user) Maybe, but those with extra permissions earned them for a reason and are more experienced editors. Not to mention that this technically proved my point in that you both were in the right and I was in the wrong as I failed to fully understand the order of events until recently, which meant that I was breaking talk page consensus. Thank you for the advice regardless. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Likewise, I would prefer that my Pending Changes Reviewer status be ignored. I got a rubber stamp that allows me to clean up messes, and there are many wiser and more experienced editors who didn't request this minor permission, presumably because they have better things to do with their time. I think you'll find that we listen to good ideas regardless of who they come from. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: Sorry for the delay in responding as I was taking a small break. I will say that I was in the wrong in this situation as I didn't understand all of the changes going on and didn't understand Aquillion's point of view. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is so complicated. My concerns over the accuracy / providence of the image were separate from the larger discussion over whether it was an appropriate image for the lead. I was quicker to add the tag (as soon as I noticed there might be a problem) because adding such tags is a relatively lightweight action as opposed to reverting a prominent addition to the lead, but I always intended to remove the image unless the direction of the other discussions drastically changed direction to show consensus for it - adding the tag was just "this will also be something that has to be addressed, if we end up keeping it." I wouldn't have created a separate talk page section to discuss that concern, but someone else did. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aquillion: Sorry for having to ping you a second time, but I do feel that it is warranted after reviewing things and I would rather talk here where it is a bit more private that there where it is public before I resume discussing things on the talk page. In regards to this edit, you said that
August 2020 WikiProject NASCAR newsletter
![]() | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
WikiProject News
None.
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on August 31. | ||
Article Developments
|
Picture of the Month ![]() The presumable Most Popular Driver in 2020, Chase Elliott. | ||
The 2010 Emory Healthcare 500 was a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series stock car race that was held on September 5, 2010 at Atlanta Motor Speedway in Hampton, Georgia. Contested over 325 laps, it was the twenty-fifth race of the 2010 Sprint Cup Series season. The race was won by Tony Stewart, for the Stewart Haas Racing team. Carl Edwards finished second, and Jimmie Johnson, who started seventh, clinched third.(Read more...) |
New Images | ||
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 WikiProject NASCAR newsletter
![]() | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
WikiProject News
None.
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 7:00 PM Eastern on August 31. | ||
Article Developments
|
Picture of the Month ![]() The presumable Most Popular Driver in 2020, Chase Elliott. | ||
The 2010 Emory Healthcare 500 was a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series stock car race that was held on September 5, 2010 at Atlanta Motor Speedway in Hampton, Georgia. Contested over 325 laps, it was the twenty-fifth race of the 2010 Sprint Cup Series season. The race was won by Tony Stewart, for the Stewart Haas Racing team. Carl Edwards finished second, and Jimmie Johnson, who started seventh, clinched third.(Read more...) |
New Images | ||
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject NASCAR September 2020 newsletter
![]() | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
WikiProject News
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 3:00 PM Eastern on September 30. | ||
Article Developments
|
New Images | ||
Derek K. Kraus (born September 1, 2001) is an American professional stock car racing driver. He currently competes full-time in the NASCAR Gander RV & Outdoors Truck Series, driving the No. 19 Toyota Tundra for McAnally-Hilgemann Racing. The Stratford, Wisconsin native is also a former NASCAR Next member and the 2019 NASCAR K&N Pro Series West Champion. (Read more...) |
Picture of the Month | ||
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject NASCAR October 2020 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
WikiProject News
|
Article Statistics Table reflects values at 8:00 PM Eastern on October 31. | ||
Article Developments
|
New Images | ||
The 2011 Budweiser Shootout was a stock car race and the first exhibition event of the 2011 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. It was held on February 12, 2011 at the Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, Florida. The 75-lap race was won by Kurt Busch for the Penske Racing team. Jamie McMurray finished second and Ryan Newman came in third. (Read more...) |
Picture of the Month | ||
Newsletter contributor: Willsome429 |
Discussion about First Lady and Second Gentleman-designate titles in infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff
Please join a discussion here regarding whether the terms "First Lady of the United States Designate" and "Second Gentleman of the United States Designate" should be in the infoboxes of Jill Biden and Doug Emhoff, spouses of the president-elect and vice president-elect, respectively. We need to come to a consensus. Thank you for your participation. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see request
- Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Job done but a query remains. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Interpolation
I think the simple counting is not prejudicial one way or the other, but the simple format I introduced is much to be preferred to the listing tables purporting to be 'analysis' that were intruded into the previous RM, unhelpfully further messing up a lengthy discussion. The simple cumulative count is probably better placed in the new section, but then it is no longer interpolated in the ! voting sequence. Also in the previous RM there was a tendency for comments to disregard the actual binary question of the RM. Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Qexigator: My understanding of the last RM was that it was tables for suggestions on a name and evidence for or against names by counting the uses by reliable sources. The counting you are doing is neither of those. However, my main problem was that people were commenting above and below it on the move discussion, hence why I re-sectioned it. Under WP:REFACTOR,
If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.
Since you made a comment here, if you wish to manually undo my edit then it can be undone. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)- Well, I see the move to a separate subsection as a good one, so thanks for that. I think it is working quite well, but I have given myself the job of updating as-and-when, not of doing the closer's job of assessing the reasons offered for and against. I believe the last RM's table exercises demonstrated among other things the futility of competing counts of what may be deemed RS for the purpose of responding yes or no to what must be a choice of stay or go to some other name. Qexigator (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Them pings
Sorry that the pings didn't work, and that I didn't sign that post (sign button fails for me sometimes). I'm topic blocked now, so I leave it up to you to deal with duplicate content situation. You could delete the subpage, blank it, etc. Naturally, you could let someone else handle that if you think you've done your part. I agree with everything you said in reply on the talkpage, it's just down to implementing one solution or another, doesn't really matter which IMO. Kind regards — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh. Given the situation, I will just leave everything as is and things can be discussed in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
"Wikilabs" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikilabs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Wikilabs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Please feel free to respond on the RfC on whether to say in the UPE template that the payer isn't necessarily the subject of the article
The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.
Before:
After:
The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you participated in discussion of the removal of that template from the article on Instacart at Talk:Instacart#Undisclosed_payments and so would have some familiarity with the general situation.
My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).
CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.
As of this writing nobody else has responded.
Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.
Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.
Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
last name
FYI, on [1], you typed Myer's, as opposed to Myre's. You may want to consider changing the name to the correct spelling, if you are able to, so there is no confusion. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me, though generally a posted message should not be edited if it has been more than a few hours after it has been posted. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Astroworld Festival paragraph
Kind of at a loss given your past edits why you didn't want to just make the edits to keep within copyright parameters yourself to keep the info there as opposed to the copyright tags unless it has something to do with the subscription blocks of some of the sources. I've edited it accordingly after going through an extensive copyright review from all the sources. As for the other material, I was under the impression either WWGB or Diannaa would've taken action past the mass copyright reviews they had already done. Thanks for the tool going forward though. Unless I'm missing something in terms of not knowing how to use that system, all I'm seeing for red sections is direct quotes from people, unless you're implying you want those replaced too, but Dianaa had seemingly intentionally left several of those in the article. My impression if she wouldn't have left them if they were a problem. Onan808 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Onan808: I did make a number of changes to the article in one edit to fix what I saw was a problem. That paragraph in particular wasn't something I felt I could fix on my own, which is why I marked it and mentioned it on your talk page. (Additionally, I don't have a subscription to the Houston Chronicle, which hinder me a bit.) Thank you for making edits to fix it. Regarding administrator intervention, I have not gone to one and discussed this with them. I did bring this up with WWGB though. As for how to use the tool, sections in red are text that is exactly the same as the article being compared to. In the case of organizations, titles, people, and units of time, they should not be a problem and can be ignored. In the case of quotes, they need quotation marks around them. In the case of other text, it is likely a direct copy and should be rewritten. For examples:
- "ratio of guests to staff" - Is a quote and has quotation marks around it
- Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association - Is the name of an organization
- ...a crowd surge. At the... - This is a split sentence and generally should be fine. Earwig ignores punctuation and can produce false positives.
- 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. - Units of time should be fine
- HPD Assistant Chief Larry Satterwhite - Is the title and name of a person
- to the brain and heart - None of the above apply. The Houston Chronicle seems to attribute this to a physician, so we could attribute this to them.
- an ambulance in the crowd - The Houston Chronicle seems to say that Scott said "There's an ambulance in the crowd" which is almost an exact quote. This should be quoted in some form. After it is quoted, it will not be a problem
- also worked as a firefighter and EMT - None of the above apply. It might be best to exclude the firefighter portion in a rewrite as it does not seem relevant
- passed out at the front of the stage, and over the next ten minutes - Two separate issues from the HC article. One is the partial quote "...passed out at the front..." and the rest is the wording "...at the front of the stage and... from the HC article.
- informed festival promoters that the show - None of the above. The HC seems to attribute this to the HPD Assistant, so attributing this to them would be the best idea.
- behind the main stage, only to be diverted to another area - Directly from the article and in the same context. A rewrite is recommended.
- the front of the crowd - This wording is used in other contexts in the Houston Chronicle article, so it isn't necessarily an issue. Changing it out of precaution would be fine.
- after the mass casualty event - This wording is used is a different context in the HC article, so it isn't necessarily an issue. Changing it out of precaution would be fine.
- "put a middle finger up [to/in] the sky" - Is a quote and has quotation mark. It does seem to not be quoted correctly though and should be adjusted, but it is not a copyright concern.
- I hope this helps give you an idea of what is an issue and what isn't. Additionally, this only covers the HC article. There are other sources that had a higher than preferred percentage of a possibility. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, a lot to unpack here. Going to need to have a system where you raise what you see as issues with each reference one-by-one and I try to correct all the points under each before we move on, as that's the only form that'll work for me long-term to avoid any mass deletions on the article that'll still satisfy copyright. There'll be so much back-and-forth on this I'm anticipating I'm almost wondering if you want to make a seperate section for it on my Talk page or the article Talk page so as to not clog up yours here. Would almost prefer my Talk Page so there's less interference there but it's your call as you'd be doing the majority of the heavy lifting in identifying issues you'd point me to to fix. To start with on quotes, especially as it regards Travis and the ambulance, there was a deliberate push for WWGB and several other editors to avoid direct quotes with quotation marks, even for sections that it was hard to replicate with synonyms so there just ended up being exact lines in some cases that weren't edited. Was that their way of heading in a direction to avoid copyright expecting someone to fix it later? I don't know. As for your example on "the brain and heart", there was a whole exchange earlier in this process from an edit either by WWGB or Dianna or someone else deliberately deleting any authority figure that didn't rise to the importance of naming - they'd make the same argument for Houston Methodist internal medicine physician Dr. Josh Septimus who gave that quote. There were many EMTs, etc. (at least 3 or 4 figures I think) who I had named on here whose names were deleted and replaced with generic titles. I just put "a local internal medicine physician" now which is his title - would that satisfy that part? Just went through a lot there and I'd go through the rest of what you raised but I wanted your response on everything I just mentioned first.Onan808 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have taken some time to reflect on things and I believe I could have been too worried. I was kinda worried that you were going to get into trouble over the article, so I believe I intervened too much and caused you a bit of trouble in response, so sorry about that. If WWGB and Dianna are saying that you are doing things correctly, then you are and I should leave things alone. Sorry if I have been a jerk to you with this. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Onan808: (Separate comment because I failed to use the ping template properly in my above message.) Additionally, I apologize for any stress I have caused you this past two or so weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks I guess. Truthfully, there are things that were discussed directly between WWGB and Dianaaa and I, but there were a lot of other things that weren't I didn't bother reaching out to them on as I tried to get a pattern of the formatting of what they were looking for that would still satisfy copyright based on the comments they both left on the article edit history. There were occasions where the two criticisms conflicted though which I never quite figured out. There's also been a lot of edits since Dianaaa's mass deletion of sections early in this process with no replacements (she didn't bother with punitive action on copyright towards me that you brought up though there was one broad warning early in the process during heavy editing chaos).
- Both of them in addition to higher up editors will be visiting the article again en masse once the mass number of visitors exponentially increases again from a ruling in the investigation, upon which mass cuts will start up again with a massive debate I'll try to get into once the dust settles, just like before on this subject. For the rest of what was mentioned, most of it comes down to support from other sourcing most likely behind subscription blocks though the HC may support some of it. Any further questions on edits you wish to just make on your own regarding any statements behind subscription blocked refs, let me know. I appreciate your concern on retaliatory measures but I can accept any ramifications from those other editors on my own. -- Onan808 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, a lot to unpack here. Going to need to have a system where you raise what you see as issues with each reference one-by-one and I try to correct all the points under each before we move on, as that's the only form that'll work for me long-term to avoid any mass deletions on the article that'll still satisfy copyright. There'll be so much back-and-forth on this I'm anticipating I'm almost wondering if you want to make a seperate section for it on my Talk page or the article Talk page so as to not clog up yours here. Would almost prefer my Talk Page so there's less interference there but it's your call as you'd be doing the majority of the heavy lifting in identifying issues you'd point me to to fix. To start with on quotes, especially as it regards Travis and the ambulance, there was a deliberate push for WWGB and several other editors to avoid direct quotes with quotation marks, even for sections that it was hard to replicate with synonyms so there just ended up being exact lines in some cases that weren't edited. Was that their way of heading in a direction to avoid copyright expecting someone to fix it later? I don't know. As for your example on "the brain and heart", there was a whole exchange earlier in this process from an edit either by WWGB or Dianna or someone else deliberately deleting any authority figure that didn't rise to the importance of naming - they'd make the same argument for Houston Methodist internal medicine physician Dr. Josh Septimus who gave that quote. There were many EMTs, etc. (at least 3 or 4 figures I think) who I had named on here whose names were deleted and replaced with generic titles. I just put "a local internal medicine physician" now which is his title - would that satisfy that part? Just went through a lot there and I'd go through the rest of what you raised but I wanted your response on everything I just mentioned first.Onan808 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
grammar and spelling
In regard to an edit request regarding Bob Saget's high school graduation class year, you typed source instead of sourced and addended instead of attended. I was having trouble figuring out what you had changed in the article. I am hoping you will make the corrections on [2], because from my understanding, I am not able to, unless I have your permission. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed my reply on the talk page. As for my changes, this is the edit I made. As you can see, I have removed the year that he graduated from the article. The line currently reads, "The family would then move back to Philadelphia prior to his senior year with Saget graduating from Abington Senior High School." Currently our sources are split between 1974 and 1975, so we would need a separate discussion to decide what to do. You have permission to start that discussion on the talk page, regardless of my support or not to it. The thing you cannot do currently is edit the article as it is indefinitely protected due to persistent vandalism. Only autoconfirmed users can edit the article and only registered users can become autoconfirmed users to my knowledge. I hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you attempted to edit my comments and was reverted by another user. There is a policy that discourages editing other users comments because of spelling mistakes. I have fixed my comments up to this point and will try to not make further mistakes, but if I do make mistakes the best thing to do is ignore them. If a mistake makes my wording unclear, just reply to me with a question for clarification on that talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding! I see there was an editor on another IP address who edited your comments and then the comments were reverted, so I am not sure who the editor was or the location of the editor. I responded on [3]. I appreciate your answers and see there is currently no year listed as to when Bob Saget graduated high school, because of conflicting sources. I appreciate the information you provided! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Then I apologize for the misidentification and for assuming because of that. For the rest, no problem. Feel free to start a sub-discussion if you wish. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Apology accepted! Understood, thanks again! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Then I apologize for the misidentification and for assuming because of that. For the rest, no problem. Feel free to start a sub-discussion if you wish. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding! I see there was an editor on another IP address who edited your comments and then the comments were reverted, so I am not sure who the editor was or the location of the editor. I responded on [3]. I appreciate your answers and see there is currently no year listed as to when Bob Saget graduated high school, because of conflicting sources. I appreciate the information you provided! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Bob Saget
![]() | On 13 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bob Saget, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Bloom6132 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC) |
Nomination for deletion of Template:Novak Djokovic 2020 career timeline
Template:Novak Djokovic 2020 career timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
FAQ brackets in Elon Musk FAQ
Hi. The actual text of WP:NPOV has "representing" not "represent", and I believe the proper way to indicate removed letters from a quoted word is with empty brackets, i.e. "represent[]". QRep2020 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, hello. I am unaware of using brackets at the end of a quoted word to indicate a spelling change, I was under the impression that the entire word should be placed in brackets, but I will revert back because I didn't know the word was changed from the source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, friend! QRep2020 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't get a notification about additional replies to this, but it seems that everything worked out in the end. Both of you have my thanks for your help in correcting my mistake and for explaining something I did not know. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, friend! QRep2020 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)