Misplaced Pages

User talk:Winged Blades of Godric: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:27, 27 September 2019 editWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits →September 2019: AddTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 16:58, 27 September 2019 edit undoWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits Impending work-vacation for a week, at leastTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|optout=all}} {{bots|optout=all}}
{{bots|optout=MassMessage}} {{bots|optout=MassMessage}}
{{Holiday|country=United Kingdom|from=28/09/2019|to=07/10/2019}}

== NPP Inactivity == == NPP Inactivity ==


Did you end up fixing ICPH's querry with the updated syntax? I fixed a querry once before but it's not my strength and if you've already done it all the better. I would like to go through and actually do the removal of anyone who has been inactive on Misplaced Pages a year. Best, ] (]) 03:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Did you end up fixing ICPH's querry with the updated syntax? I fixed a query once before but it's not my strength and if you've already done it all the better. I would like to go through and actually do the removal of anyone who has been inactive on Misplaced Pages a year. Best, ] (]) 03:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{U|Barkeep49}}, In June {{U|Xaosflux}} removed a few, so he knows the regex to update the list ] (]) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC) :{{U|Barkeep49}}, In June {{U|Xaosflux}} removed a few, so he knows the regex to update the list ] (]) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
::{{Re|Barkeep49}} we regularly remove "special groups" that have 12 month complete inactivity, as of right now the only users that are in the "patroller" group exceeding 12 months of editing activity are secondary accounts of admins. Is that what you are looking in to? — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC) ::{{Re|Barkeep49}} we regularly remove "special groups" that have 12 month complete inactivity, as of right now the only users that are in the "patroller" group exceeding 12 months of editing activity are secondary accounts of admins. Is that what you are looking in to? — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:58, 27 September 2019

Winged Blades of Godric is away on vacation in United Kingdom from 28/09/2019 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

NPP Inactivity

Did you end up fixing ICPH's querry with the updated syntax? I fixed a query once before but it's not my strength and if you've already done it all the better. I would like to go through and actually do the removal of anyone who has been inactive on Misplaced Pages a year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, In June Xaosflux removed a few, so he knows the regex to update the list Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: we regularly remove "special groups" that have 12 month complete inactivity, as of right now the only users that are in the "patroller" group exceeding 12 months of editing activity are secondary accounts of admins. Is that what you are looking in to? — xaosflux 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, it was. Good to know that this already happens without any help from me. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Akiwo Arakawa (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Misplaced Pages article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain:-That's a poor decline; are you aware of WP:NACADEMIC? I would have moved that to main-space myself, if I did not have a COI.
Hyperbolick, thanks for your work! ∯WBG 14:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Lol, nothing beats waking up and having something called "poor" you did on Misplaced Pages...first for everything in 14 years. And they wonder why newbies don't stick around. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain: I'm sorry, if that was the first message you saw today:-( On an aside, as someone who has been here for over 4 years with about 40,000 edits, me thinks that rejecting policy-compliant articles from newbies also affect editor-retention, negatively. ∯WBG 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

section review

Hope you are doing well. Please can you review this section? It seems to have a different meaning. Previously it was  ]. Now it is ]. It seems like the very edits based on your discussion here ] are reverted. Thanks.

WP:BLP applies even to non biographies if the article talks about actions by people still living-- or allegations against them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

" legal case against Wikimedia"

I don't doubt it. After my own harrowing, I'm much more sensitive to this than before. Of course, as I learned watching Law and Order, the best way to avoid an accusation of impropriety is to avoid the appearance there of. So I will almost always advocate for the removal of unsavory content when it is challenged.-- Deepfriedokra 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I have refactored my support comment that you refer to in Fram's RfA. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

I'm sorry to see that you decided to edit-war on Nadja Malacrida. I believe you are mistaken in your actions and conclusions, and I am formally warning you that further edit-warring may lead to a block. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that. Removing sourced content is rarely a constructive edit, and your efforts would be better directed to proposing alternate wording on the talk page in an effort to find common ground over how best to summarise what Tinniswood wrote. --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, I don't give a flying fuck about your warning and this passive-aggresive BS.
Also, the last revert was by Giano, pending which I made a thread at 3RRN and added more stuff to the t/p section, which sufficiently indicates that I am not going to edit-war. ∯WBG 14:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Godric, if the best response to a perfectly reasonable piece of advice is "I don't give a flying fuck" then you're running the risk of getting blocked. In particular, I haven't really seen you voice any opinion on the content, but just make vague hand-waving comments about policies. For example, consider your edit here. You removed a bunch of information about Malacrida's husband as "irrelevant" (okay, but in whose opinion?) and citing WP:REFBOMB which makes no sense given the account of Piero's interior design writing is cited to a single book source. In particular, removing the source and replacing it with a {{fact}} tag should be avoided unless you can demonstrate you have checked the source and found the claims are not present, in which case it's better to tag at {{failed verification}}, and even then only if you can back up and justify your tags. It's not really surprising your edits were reverted, as they don't seem to show any empathy for the subject matter. Ritchie333 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333,
T/p(s) exist for a purpose and our policies explicitly ask users to not discuss stuff via edit-sums; I have indeed launched a specific section for my reverts, post the first revert by Giano. Where RexxS has responded and I will respond, soon.
I need not show any empathy for a long-deceased subject; nothing whatsoever. Also, this is a bit rich, coming after all that has happened with you. ∯WBG 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User Talk Reverts

Hey there. I've noticed on a couple user talks that I watch that you'll sometimes make a comment and then decided shortly after to self-revert - in looking at your edits to user talks I see 4 such examples in the last week. Because of the nature of talk page notifications I'm guessing that in most situations that the person is still seeing your edit. So rather than walking back comments you think better of - what I am sure is your intent - it now causes all the impact of the post without allowing the person it's directed at to have a chance to respond. I'd like to suggest that you think just a tad harder before publishing comments to user talks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Category: