| Revision as of 05:32, 21 February 2021 editJr8825 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,393 edits →Admin help← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:33, 21 February 2021 edit undoJr8825 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,393 editsm →Admin helpNext edit → | ||
| Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
| :::::Marked as answered as I've received advice on next steps from an uninvolved editor knowledgable in the field (take it to ANI if the image is edit warred back into the article again). ] • ] 00:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC) | :::::Marked as answered as I've received advice on next steps from an uninvolved editor knowledgable in the field (take it to ANI if the image is edit warred back into the article again). ] • ] 00:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Hello Jr8825. If you are talking about , it is now closed with a warning to the other party that they can be blocked if they revert again. The term 'hoax' perhaps has some baggage, but it is easier to see this as a question of the other party warring to add unsourced material. And it doesn't depend on whether Commons decides to accept the image; it's a question of enwiki standards for making unsupported claims about history. The mere existence of a souvenir map, with unknown authorship, doesn't prove the intentions of the British government one way or the other. A question like that one needs actual RS. Thanks, ] (]) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC) | ::::::Hello Jr8825. If you are talking about , it is now closed with a warning to the other party that they can be blocked if they revert again. The term 'hoax' perhaps has some baggage, but it is easier to see this as a question of the other party warring to add unsourced material. And it doesn't depend on whether Commons decides to accept the image; it's a question of enwiki standards for making unsupported claims about history. The mere existence of a souvenir map, with unknown authorship, doesn't prove the intentions of the British government one way or the other. A question like that one needs actual RS. Thanks, ] (]) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Thanks for the message, {{u|EdJohnston}}. I thanked you because you saw things more clearly than I did and got to the heart of the issue, verifiability. |
:::::::Thanks for the message, {{u|EdJohnston}}. I thanked you because you saw things more clearly than I did and got to the heart of the issue, verifiability. {{u|Levivich}}, who I'd ] just before you responded, offered similar advice. I appreciate that hoax is a loaded term (the caption was factually incorrect and unsourced, so, being charitable, it's SYNTH/OR). I saw it being pushed onto multiple wikis and jumped to a hardline stance. Whether or not the image has been manipulated, you're completely right that the real issue remains lack of sourcing for the extraordinary claim. ] • ] 05:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:33, 21 February 2021
 |
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 Archives |
In appreciation
|
The Featured Article Medal | |
| By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
- Thanks for this Gog the Mild, it's really appreciated. I'm delighted to come out the other side of FAC unscathed, and here's hoping I'll find the time to bring another article to FAC in the foreseeable future. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 15:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good. It would be nice to see some more of your well written articles at FAC. Got any topics in mind? By the way, one of the contributors to the review is a professor of Medieval history specialising in late-Medieval fortifications! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I do think the topic made things smoother, as it's easier to gather a comprehensive range of sources on an individual site than it would be for a broader topic. That said, I'm far more ambitious than realistic, and you've opened a Pandora's box here as there are many articles I'd like to rewrite over the next few years while I have access to my university's library. Articles on Welsh medieval history, such as Castell y Bere, the Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey, would be the most straightforward. It's always nicer to write from scratch, and we could do with an article on the Industrial Revolution in Wales (a counterpart to the Scottish one), while the History of Wales should be brought to GA. Broader again, the Industrial Revolution is a delisted GA I've had my eye on, although I tremble at the thought of diving into that 19,000 word mammoth. Closer to my actual degree subject, there are a bunch of short popular vital articles on political theory topics, such as Executive, Legislature or Parliamentary system. Who knows whether I'll do any of this (and I spend quite a lot of time trying to keep current affairs articles tidy), but fingers crossed! Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Industrial Revolution most definitely needs splitting. It should be an overview article for 4-8 others. If you tried to split it, you would probably meet resistance, so if you did fancy going that way I would suggest generating a new article on, say, "social effect", and then slimming down that section of the main article, and so on. Personally I like your choices of Castell y Bere, the Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely bear them in mind. :) Jr8825 • Talk 19:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Industrial Revolution most definitely needs splitting. It should be an overview article for 4-8 others. If you tried to split it, you would probably meet resistance, so if you did fancy going that way I would suggest generating a new article on, say, "social effect", and then slimming down that section of the main article, and so on. Personally I like your choices of Castell y Bere, the Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I do think the topic made things smoother, as it's easier to gather a comprehensive range of sources on an individual site than it would be for a broader topic. That said, I'm far more ambitious than realistic, and you've opened a Pandora's box here as there are many articles I'd like to rewrite over the next few years while I have access to my university's library. Articles on Welsh medieval history, such as Castell y Bere, the Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey, would be the most straightforward. It's always nicer to write from scratch, and we could do with an article on the Industrial Revolution in Wales (a counterpart to the Scottish one), while the History of Wales should be brought to GA. Broader again, the Industrial Revolution is a delisted GA I've had my eye on, although I tremble at the thought of diving into that 19,000 word mammoth. Closer to my actual degree subject, there are a bunch of short popular vital articles on political theory topics, such as Executive, Legislature or Parliamentary system. Who knows whether I'll do any of this (and I spend quite a lot of time trying to keep current affairs articles tidy), but fingers crossed! Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good. It would be nice to see some more of your well written articles at FAC. Got any topics in mind? By the way, one of the contributors to the review is a professor of Medieval history specialising in late-Medieval fortifications! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi there,
I saw your response but unfortunately I can replay as admins think I am creating more problem for others by providing references and challenging information that is one-sided or bias. thanks for contributing and making the NK-2020 topic more balanced. Mirhasanov (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mirhasanov, thanks for your comment. I think the problem is that while it's valuable to point out places that are one-sided, we also need to work together as editors to find common ground on the content (not just pointing out when we think the other side is wrong). Anyway, the issue is out of my hands (or Rosguill's) and it will be carefully looked at by many uninvolved admins at the noticeboard. I do think the best thing to do would be to practice working on less controversial areas. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 13:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825 thanks for your balanced approach again. I always said that the article must reflect only truth and shouldn't be product of propaganda machine neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani side. If you would need any help, advice or information that you are not sure about Azerbaijan, I will be more than happy to support you. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
New message from TheEpicGhosty
Message added 21:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sig fix
Please fix your signature to no longer use invalid markup. You can do this by changing your signature code in Preferences, to replace this:
] • ]
with this:
] • ]
The longer you use markup that hasn't been valid since the 1990s, the more you add to the WP:LINT cleanup problem. If you'd like to get more involved in WP's migration to full HTML 5 compliance, see WP:CHECKWIKI and WP:HTML5, as well as the user JavaScript and CSS tools detailed toward the bottom of WP:LINT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SMcCandlish, thanks for the heads up. I've now adjusted it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thankee. :-) I'm glad I ran into your sig; in the process of looking again (for the first time in a long time) at the pages I referred you to, I realized that they were very poorly interconnected, so I've resolved that with a bunch "See also" links and other cross-references. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's the spirit! To be honest, the whole set of Help: and Misplaced Pages: info pages are poorly interconnected. Yesterday I used one the more uncommon Twinkle welcome templates to give a proactive new editor a more advanced set of links, and, seeing that a bunch of these were overlapping, redirected or have been replaced by better tools over the last decade, ended up cleaning out the whole template. It sure wasn't pretty. Jr8825 • Talk 16:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thankee. :-) I'm glad I ran into your sig; in the process of looking again (for the first time in a long time) at the pages I referred you to, I realized that they were very poorly interconnected, so I've resolved that with a bunch "See also" links and other cross-references. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Armtura's actions that you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Armatura. Thank you. — Mirhasanov (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Mirhasanov. Your topic ban means you shouldn't be discussing editors' actions within that area, so the discussion you've started at the admin noticeboard is inappropriate. I suggest you follow the advice you've given on your talk page very carefully, including the instruction to strike out your post at the noticeboard. AE sanctions are strictly enforced and if you don't take action you will end up being blocked. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jr8825 I decided to leave anyway as writing in wikipedia is not more than frustration for me. Hence, I already asked for Vanish request from admins. If I can't even talk about the topic I am interested here, there is no reason me to stay. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Cefnllys Castle
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 24, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/December 24, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification Wehwalt. I'm excited to see this happening quickly and look forward to making some tweaks to the blurb. Jr8825 • Talk 15:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your edits on the N-K War. I don’t really edit the page - I dunno how to spell it! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
- What a pleasant surprise! Thanks very much Destroyeraa :) Jr8825 • Talk 02:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
On Shusha
Hey! What's up? Just wanted to notify you that I've nominated Battle of Shusha (2020) to GA. As an editor who've copyedited the article and made major tweaks, I thought you might've wanted to take a look at it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Solavirum, thanks for the heads-up. I've just had another glance at it and can see a few grammar issues & bits that need cleaning up. I'll try to get round to this soon – although I don't think it's particularly urgent as there's a large backlog at GAN. Jr8825 • Talk 02:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Jr8825,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Cefnllys Castle
Lovely to see this on the front page. The first always has a buzz! Congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for Cefnllys Castle, "about a largely forgotten medieval castle, once a crucial frontier outpost in the most volatile part of the Welsh Marches, now reduced to rubble on an isolated ridge. My curiosity was piqued after coming across the stub a few weeks ago, and I was surprised to learn that the castles (there were in fact 3 successive castles, spanning 400 years of history) played a major role in English attempts to subjugate the independent Welsh princes. The strategic location made it a focal point of the conflict, and the building of the final castle at Cefnllys – following a Welsh siege which had destroyed the second – helped cause the final conquest of Wales. Its later history, and the failed castle town, also provide an insight into the social history of the Marches."! - lovely company to two DYK I have there, coming with good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- KJP1 & Gerda Arendt, thanks for your kind messages! Wishing you both a happy Christmas/New Year, Jr8825 • Talk 01:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Precious
medieval history in England
Thank you for quality articles about medieval history in England such as Cefnllys Castle, for exquisite edit summaries, such as "cut down a little bit of excess repetition", fr improving Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, requesting reliable sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2501 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Welcome to Misplaced Pages splash screen.jpg
The file File:Welcome to Misplaced Pages splash screen.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Notification
I mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Signal (software) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ben Garrison on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Holocaust on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Admin help
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Hello, I’m looking some advice (and ideally a pair of fresh eyes) regarding my report at AN/EW, which appears to be languishing at the top of the page and risks being archived without a response, despite the four reverts. I expect this is because the 3RR violation is muddied by a content dispute on a hot topic (Turkish nationalism) and unsurprisingly nobody's keen to invest their time and energy into digging to the bottom of it. However, I believe it's also a case of subtle (but upon examination, unambiguous) disruptive editing given the context (an image cropped from an actual historic item, mislabeled and removed of its context so that it serves a false narrative). The difficulty is that while the Commons deletion process may be the technically correct way to remove the image from the project (as the image has also been inserted across multiple Wikipedias) it's not a good place for drawing much attention from neutral, uninvolved editors, and the issue of removing the image on the English Misplaced Pages is probably best resolved here at en-wiki.
I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could review the 3RR violation before it's archived. It would be good to have someone take a look at the content issue itself, but if the patrolling admin who answers isn’t enthusiastic about doing this, I'd be grateful for suggestions for how to draw attention to it and the best forum to take it to. Would mechanisms like WP:THIRD be appropriate? I'm unsure given the disruptive element of the content I mentioned. Many thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 17:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
May be of help:
- Editor who inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias
- Commons deletion page
- Article history Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: The original report was archived and the user resumed reverting, prompting me to open a second report (with the same name). Jr8825 • Talk 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just a quick note that you can use Template:Do not archive until to prevent a thread from being archived. No comment on whether it's a good idea in this particular case. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Rotideypoc41352: thanks for the link now that it's been archived. Asking anyone here: should I restore it to the noticeboard? Jr8825 • Talk 06:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's no use; the report wouldn't get actioned at 3RRN since it's now stale. At the same time, I also believe the image is highly suspect so I've removed it. If I were you, I'd try to find and contact an admin with some knowledge of the topic directly. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Rotideypoc41352: thanks for the link now that it's been archived. Asking anyone here: should I restore it to the noticeboard? Jr8825 • Talk 06:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I see you marked my help request as resolved, but I haven't had an answer as to where the best place is to raise the content issue, do you have any suggestions? I have to say it doesn't inspire confidence that nobody is willing to take action against such a blatant 3RR violation, it sends the wrong message – the user in question reverted for a 5th time yesterday (they once more re-added the hoax image when a user tried to remove it). I opened a new EW report yesterday following the 5th revert and it's again sitting unanswered. Jr8825 • Talk 21:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Asking for admin help in multiple places is not appropriate - you now have a 3RR report open. I too had a lengthy delay getting a response to an edit warring report, but eventually it did get answered. Please be patient. Add any further diffs to the report as they occur. Don't wait. By the way, you removed the image 4 times so you too have been edit warring.— Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Respectfully, I think you might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here. I had a long think about my fourth edit and went ahead after giving thorough consideration to 3RR. I re-read the rule carefully and considered that, as my original edit summary was "removing hoax image", my action was countering disruptive behaviour (I don't believe this is a genuine content disagreement). I agree the disruption is not as obvious or clear as other forms of vandalism, which is why I adhered to the 3 revert rule with my reverts (besides, after they demonstrated that they were going to disregard the warning I left on their talk page and revert past 3RR, there was no point in trying to prevent it). I'm not sure why you think I asked for admin help in multiple places, I opened this up when it became clear the original report was going to be archived without action, as it was. I opened the second report at AN/EW after the user started reverting again, but I didn't close this thread as I was still hoping I'd get an answer to my main question here (what's the best forum to take raise this at?) – I still haven't had an answer for this. I do hope you're right about the EW report getting a response this time around. Jr8825 • Talk 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)You've already got it at two forums - the Commons and the 3RR report - so I guess I don't know what the question actually is. I am re-activating the admin help template. Perhaps someone else can help you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening my question. In the meantime I'm going to see if I can find an admin with knowledge in the topic area and if I succeed I'll close the template myself. I'm not sure Commons is the right place for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not convinced editors with knowledge of the field are likely to be commenting there, and secondly the scope there is different (i.e. does this image have any educational value? – although I personally don't think it does, it's not clear-cut given that it's an an extract from a real historical object). On Misplaced Pages the issue isn't just the false title/caption, it's also truthfulness & verifiability (is the image used in such as way as to promote a hoax narrative?). Jr8825 • Talk 23:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Marked as answered as I've received advice on next steps from an uninvolved editor knowledgable in the field (take it to ANI if the image is edit warred back into the article again). Jr8825 • Talk 00:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Jr8825. If you are talking about this AN3 case, it is now closed with a warning to the other party that they can be blocked if they revert again. The term 'hoax' perhaps has some baggage, but it is easier to see this as a question of the other party warring to add unsourced material. And it doesn't depend on whether Commons decides to accept the image; it's a question of enwiki standards for making unsupported claims about history. The mere existence of a souvenir map, with unknown authorship, doesn't prove the intentions of the British government one way or the other. A question like that one needs actual RS. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, EdJohnston. I thanked you because you saw things more clearly than I did and got to the heart of the issue, verifiability. Levivich, who I'd asked for a second opinion just before you responded, offered similar advice. I appreciate that hoax is a loaded term (the caption was factually incorrect and unsourced, so, being charitable, it's SYNTH/OR). I saw it being pushed onto multiple wikis and jumped to a hardline stance. Whether or not the image has been manipulated, you're completely right that the real issue remains lack of sourcing for the extraordinary claim. Jr8825 • Talk 05:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Jr8825. If you are talking about this AN3 case, it is now closed with a warning to the other party that they can be blocked if they revert again. The term 'hoax' perhaps has some baggage, but it is easier to see this as a question of the other party warring to add unsourced material. And it doesn't depend on whether Commons decides to accept the image; it's a question of enwiki standards for making unsupported claims about history. The mere existence of a souvenir map, with unknown authorship, doesn't prove the intentions of the British government one way or the other. A question like that one needs actual RS. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Marked as answered as I've received advice on next steps from an uninvolved editor knowledgable in the field (take it to ANI if the image is edit warred back into the article again). Jr8825 • Talk 00:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening my question. In the meantime I'm going to see if I can find an admin with knowledge in the topic area and if I succeed I'll close the template myself. I'm not sure Commons is the right place for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not convinced editors with knowledge of the field are likely to be commenting there, and secondly the scope there is different (i.e. does this image have any educational value? – although I personally don't think it does, it's not clear-cut given that it's an an extract from a real historical object). On Misplaced Pages the issue isn't just the false title/caption, it's also truthfulness & verifiability (is the image used in such as way as to promote a hoax narrative?). Jr8825 • Talk 23:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)You've already got it at two forums - the Commons and the 3RR report - so I guess I don't know what the question actually is. I am re-activating the admin help template. Perhaps someone else can help you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Respectfully, I think you might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here. I had a long think about my fourth edit and went ahead after giving thorough consideration to 3RR. I re-read the rule carefully and considered that, as my original edit summary was "removing hoax image", my action was countering disruptive behaviour (I don't believe this is a genuine content disagreement). I agree the disruption is not as obvious or clear as other forms of vandalism, which is why I adhered to the 3 revert rule with my reverts (besides, after they demonstrated that they were going to disregard the warning I left on their talk page and revert past 3RR, there was no point in trying to prevent it). I'm not sure why you think I asked for admin help in multiple places, I opened this up when it became clear the original report was going to be archived without action, as it was. I opened the second report at AN/EW after the user started reverting again, but I didn't close this thread as I was still hoping I'd get an answer to my main question here (what's the best forum to take raise this at?) – I still haven't had an answer for this. I do hope you're right about the EW report getting a response this time around. Jr8825 • Talk 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)