| Revision as of 05:19, 15 May 2021 editCAPTAIN RAJU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers409,692 edits →Happy First Edit Day!: new section (BDCS)← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:31, 15 May 2021 edit undoFirefangledfeathers (talk | contribs)Administrators31,647 edits →Sicknick: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
| From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC) | From the ], ]<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| == Sicknick == | |||
| Hi Neutrality! I would love your thoughts on a proposed compromise at ]. I messed up your user name on my first attempt at a ping and am not confident the second attempt went through. Apologies and thanks, ] (]) 05:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:31, 15 May 2021
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
,_Regga,_Gozo,_Malta,_2021-08-23,_DD_14.jpg)
Mediterranean moray
Photograph credit: Diego Delso
AAR Corp
Can you please explain why you took the actions you did for AAR Corp. I added some factual text and references on 2/25. A Snooganssnoogans(SN) took it down, I put it back up. SN complained that it was "just mundane marketing language." Who is SN to decide? By that measure, most business Misplaced Pages entries are full of such language. I even rewrote the text but it was taken down again. What is going on. Fgbwashdc (talk)Fgbwashdc — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fgbwashdc: When your edits are challenged, you need to obtain a consensus from other editors in order to make them again. You do that by discussing on the article talk page. Neutrality 18:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hi, you had enquired about alternate account use with this IP. Did you get a response? Because they edited again today. - wolf 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thewolfchild: I never got a specific answer, but on Talk:Officer of the United States he/she wrote, "I generally work incognito and only log in if I'm doing anything significant or voting. Likewise, I learned they already know me by my IP so I'm not exactly hiding anything. If it's important I can log in more readly." I think this is plainly an attempt to avoid scrutiny (especially because user pages don't disclose the connection between the IP and account). If you opened an WP:SPI or WP:ANI on this, I would gladly support it. Neutrality 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- It appears they have confirmed the connection between the accounts; the registered account posted an unsigned comment on an article talk page, and even though another editor added their signature with an 'unsigned' template the next day, the IP account then signed the post, as the IP, the day after that (oddly inserting the IP signature between the post and the registered account's signature).
Obviously, there's concerns such as using both accounts in the same talk page debate leading to a change in disputed content, (as they did here), but with this info, I don't think an SPI is needed. A few days ago, an ANI would've been in order, as they were being disruptive, but they were since been blocked. It has since come out that they have emailed multiple people, so I was just curious if that included you. Cheers - wolf 20:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- It appears they have confirmed the connection between the accounts; the registered account posted an unsigned comment on an article talk page, and even though another editor added their signature with an 'unsigned' template the next day, the IP account then signed the post, as the IP, the day after that (oddly inserting the IP signature between the post and the registered account's signature).
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feral cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attrition.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Mark F. Pomerantz
On 17 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark F. Pomerantz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that attorney Mark F. Pomerantz, who supervised the prosecution of mob boss John A. Gotti, is now assisting a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's finances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark F. Pomerantz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mark F. Pomerantz), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
A kitten for you because of your amazing work on the cat page!
CrayonArt45 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Aid
- added a link pointing to Norm
- Gerard Baker
- added a link pointing to Re-education camp
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
I just noticed your improvements to Timeline of violent and dangerous incidents at the U.S. Capitol. I appreciate it. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
Administrator changes
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the
delete-redirectuserright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
- When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
- Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
Arbitration
- A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation Page
Hi Neutrality,
First, thanks for the correction, can't believe I made such an obvious mistake!
Second, I made a couple of changes to the text you added. I was a bit worried that, as written, they would draw more random IP changes and come off a bit more editorial than is normal and this formulation still conveys all the relevant information in a bit more neutral manner. Let me know if you think I'm missing anything substantive now. Thanks, Squatch347 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think we need to concisely explain what H.R. 1 entails and we also need to make clear that the group's ad campaign in Arizona was false. That is, after all, what the sources say. Neutrality 00:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Not a Britishism
"In hospital", that is. Solid Canadian English! But yeah, thanks for noticing 2,600 seemed a bit low, "decimated" even, as we say up here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2001:9B1:8826:0:98:128:186:90
Have we given this person enough chances? I reverted the person on United States Capitol Police claiming it was an unsourced good faith edit, but maybe I was being too lenient.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee: Definitely, a block is in order. Neutrality 16:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not being an administrator and having no experience in this area, I'd appreciate letting you handle it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the person's response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, good, you have blocking ability. Thank you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the person's response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not being an administrator and having no experience in this area, I'd appreciate letting you handle it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
For the People Act
If you think the Gray argument can be condensed without literally wiping the content out, I'm all ears. But you appear to be working towards an agenda where you're simply taking a WP:BADPOV approach towards content you don't like. Davefelmer (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Davefelmer: Please immediately self-revert your most recent edit. WP:ONUS says that editors cannot simply strong-arm in new challenged content over others' objections; rather, the proponent of the content bears the burden of establishing a consensus, and the content stays out in the meantime. Neutrality 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody has strong-armed anything, you once again appear to be trying to manipulate the rules to enforce WP:BADPOV on content you don't like. You made an objection that you thought the argument had too much weight, but then completely wiped it out and attacked the source's credibility. It's the equivalent to pointing out a grammar issue with an argument as justification for blowing it all out; your objection and subsequent action were not made in good faith to address the objection. And now that I present you a chance here to address the issue you claim to have, so that we may get the consensus you seek, and you seemingly don't engage towards a solution once again.
- Once again, your objection was that the Gray argument had too much weight. In order to narrow it down so that it doesn't have too much weight, what do you propose? I propose that we could cut down the subsequent line on supportive SCOTUS justices/decisions and reduce it to a small comment at the end about how he supports his argument with several prior supreme court decisions. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's unacceptable for you to restore challenged content without consensus. When content is challenged, you wait until a consensus forms before restoring it. Moreover, I ask you to re-review our policy on civility and assume good faith. I ask you to please follow our policies and guidelines. I have started a discussion on the article talk page (even though the burden to initiate discussion is generally on the proponent of material challenged by reversion). Neutrality 22:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Davefelmer: Please immediately self-revert your most recent edit. WP:ONUS says that editors cannot simply strong-arm in new challenged content over others' objections; rather, the proponent of the content bears the burden of establishing a consensus, and the content stays out in the meantime. Neutrality 21:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ken Paxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austin City Hall.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited School district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dave Bruderly
There seems to be a mistake in your AfD nomination of Dave Bruderly. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Good eye, thanks! Fixed. Neutrality 01:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Benjamin Smith (executive)
Hi Neutrality. Would you mind taking a look at User talk:Ben.lipsey#Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion? Since you're an admin and did do some cleanup on the article, perhaps you might have some additional advice for this editor. If it turns out I've been giving them some inaccurate advice, please correct me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Mike Braun page, why was my NPOV edit reverted?
Was there anything about my edit that was factually incorrect? I did not give any credence to fringe theories. The claim I removed was not at all supported by the article which was listed as a reference. If you have a particular problem with a word or two I used that is one thing, but Snooganssnoogans has a clear pattern of partisan framing to his edits and they should not be the final word. Shuageo (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Is your username meant to be ironic? Just curious. Shuageo (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
- The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.
Technical news
- The user group
oversightwill be renamed tosuppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
- The user group
Arbitration
- The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Rufo Article
Hi!
I took our discussion over to the Reliable Sources chatboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_text_of_an_Executive_Order_by_the_President_of_the_United_States_a_Reliable_Source_for_the_Content_of_that_Order
2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 05:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Sicknick
Hi Neutrality! I would love your thoughts on a proposed compromise at Talk:Death of Brian Sicknick#Storming of the Capitol?. I messed up your user name on my first attempt at a ping and am not confident the second attempt went through. Apologies and thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)