User talk:Josve05a/Archives/2014/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitration enforcement alert: Eastern Europe

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.

Hi, I'm alerting you about the existence of discretionary sanctions because you have expressed an interest in editing Polandball, an Eastern Europe-related topic that has previously been the subject of conflict. Regards,  Sandstein  10:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no intrest of editing the article(s) themself (unless consensus is given), so no worries. But I however feel like that this "template"-message is a little {{uw-dttr}}... (t) Josve05a (c) 11:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the officious template, but procedure mandates that I use this exact template for such an alert. Also, just to avoid confusion, it is not in fact possible to revoke such an alert, contrary to what Nick says below.  Sandstein  13:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
You can't issue enforcement action concerning an article that has yet to be created or undeleted, and anyway, you can no longer deal with any enforcement action as you yourself are now subject to discretionary sanctions. The correct course of action is for you to both remove the template and to apologise for the chilling behaviour shown towards Josve05a. Nick (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Nick, you may want to read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, because it seems to me that you may not be up to date regarding that procedure. Everyone is always subject to discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, in the sense that an admin may impose such sanctions in the case of misconduct. The purpose of such an alert is only to make people aware of that possibility, which (as the template specifies) implies no misconduct on the part of the recipient. Receiving such an alert (superfluously, I may add), has no impact on my ability to take any further admin actions. Sorry, Josve05a, for misusing your talk page to respond here, but this may be of interest to you also.  Sandstein  13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of what WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts says. I worry when I read the Role of administrators section if you do, however. Please read this section and explain how you believe your behaviour today is acceptable and in line with policy. I consider you immediately failing the test under Clause 1 - [administrators must not] impose a sanction when involved; as you clearly are. You deleted the original article which I consider immediately rules you out on the basis of being involved (and I'm clearly not alone). This whole mess should have been referred to another, uninvolved administrator to deal with and decide on the course of action. Nick (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you misunderstand what "involved" means. My closure of the AfD of the Polandball article was an administrative action, and as WP:INVOLVED makes clear, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role (...) is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." In other words, as long as I do not engage in an editorial capacity with the "Polandball" topic, which I do not intend to because it does not interest me, there is no problem with me continuing to take administrative actions in this topic area. Apart from that, issuing alerts is not a sanction, but something everyone can do, whether involved or not. (Josve05a, please tell me if you would like me to stop using this talk page to talk to Nick.)  Sandstein  14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein, if you genuinely think it's acceptable to be the deleting administrator of Polandball and then to come to Josve05a's talk page and warn of discretionary sanctions when Josve05a is looking to reverse a deletion you made through the Deletion Review process, there's not a lot I can do. I would never, ever consider doing what you've done and I've always included INVOLVED to include any question of administrative action, not just editing action. Anyway, TL;DR, I think you're way out of line and far too involved to act impartially but we're never going to agree, so we'll just have to leave it there. Nick (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Just found this ... and I agree entirely with Nick here. Your prior decisions were under community review, and you decide to perform actions against the person who initiated the review and against the person whose work was being reviewed. Is that how you think admins should react? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. I did not consider that in the context of the deletion review request, my alert might have been perceived as an adversarial action by the person at whom the alert is directed. I'll keep that in mind for the next similar situation. Nonetheless, an alert is not an administrative action, but something any editor may issue, whether involved or not. The criticism of my issuing the alert is therefore still unfounded. As concerns my closing the AfD of an article to which Russavia contributed, I don't see how this makes me involved for the purpose of deleting of an article written by a sock of Russavia. These are both administrative actions.  Sandstein  15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Even for your frequently tenuous Arbitration Enforcement action Sandstein, this takes the biscuit. Josve05a - consider the above message revoked or superfluous, there's no way I (or indeed the Arbitration Committee) is going to allow an over enthusiastic amateur to stop people trying to add content to Wikipedia. I have thought, with all due respect Sandstein, your Arbitration Enforcement was blunderingly incompetent, but this just confirms it. Nick (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To Josve05a from EricGus (ddkul)

Best person in the world.
Thanks for this wonderful week <3 Ddkul (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ddkul: Awww! No, thank you for this week! It was amazing! <3 (Just remember that Wikipedia is not Facebook, and "socializing" is frowned upon by some...BUT I DON'T CARE! You are most amazing person ever!) (t) Josve05a (c) 23:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

request for patience

I beg you to give me some extra time to include citation and/or footnotes.

although I can trace relevant material to include, the Wikipedia process is a bit of a stumbling block, at least for those of us who are not technology-wired and unfamiliar with digital procedures.

I am no web page programmer, a non native speaker of English, and the whole issue is a bit of a challenge.

I will try my best, however, thanks so much for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.76.64 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't

Eddie Hearn:

Are you acting in an 'official capacity' for Wiki?

If not who are you to edit my work?

Please ... don't

Thanks

CD — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseDripper (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @CheeseDripper: Neither you nor anyone owns this article and you have no business telling editors not to edit your so-called work. As it happens, I'm nominating the article for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

book test

hi there, i removed (and then you re-instated) the text to the book test page. You reveal methods that are not yours to reveal. Magic and mentalism rely on secrets. And some of us get paid to perform. You are harming both the secrets, potentially the careers and revealing secrets that do not belong to you. Dr. Hoy (that you reference) his Dr Faust booklet is not yours, and you should not reveal the secrets within. Nor should you reveal other techniques and methods (which you currently do). None of these belong to you, nor to the public domain. You are also violating copyrights by revealing the techniques that are in published books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.122.215 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

While editing the Draft:E-Discovery In India, i came across the decline message that mentioned the copyright violation as the reason for decline. The objectionable portion was attributed with the source. I have edited that portion and resubmitted the draft. Please review the same for inclusion. Thanks.

120.59.235.204 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Polandball DYK

Josve05a, I had to reverse your reopening of the Polandball DYK. It was properly closed and rejected in 2012, so the only way it can come back is as a new nomination. (You'd have to vary the name of the nomination page from the original name.)

I'm actually unsure as to whether the article would be eligible as it stands now, which is why it might be best to post a query at WT:DYK. The article was 3731 prose characters at the time of both of its deletions in 2012; since the article was reconstituted with that text, the material can no longer be counted as original after over two years. That means a 5x expansion would be required, and at 6080 prose characters currently, it's not even a 2x expansion. You'd need 18655 prose characters in all, which is a huge amount to write, and may well be more than the topic can reasonably hold.

The one way to be sure this would qualify is for it to be listed as a Good Article, and then nominated for DYK within seven days of listing. Whatever you decide to pursue, best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #132

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Sir Nigel Shadbolt, Lydia, Magnus and Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the ODI award gala
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/633157900

Seems to be "resolved". Nice to see you again Bgwhite. @FDMS4: You might be allowed to revert/change anything userpages on Commons, but here, we have a bit of leniency with userpages etc. But you did follow WP:BRD, so that's something. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Bgwhite: Of course he does, but Category:Wikimedia Foundation donors is not following our naming conventions for user categories.    FDMS  4    23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

FDMS4, you have to be more specific, because it meets the requirements listed. Also, NEVER remove categories from user pages, always talk about it first. Users have been given great latitude over red linked categories as many use it as forms of protest. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: It is not very likely but possible that Category:Wikimedia Foundation donors becomes a mainspace category in the future, as it is lacking a user category indication in its title (background, by the way). I did not expect this removal to be controversial at all, otherwise I at least would have used a tool allowing me to leave an edit summary or of course discussed it first.    FDMS  4    00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
FDMS4, anytime you remove material from an Editor's userpage that they added, it is controversial.
  1. A possible mainspace category is not a reason to remove and not listed at naming conventions for user categories.
  2. Your background is to an image file and not a user page.
  3. In my opinion, it is not lacking a user category indication, but if you object, then change it to "Wikipedians who donated to WMF" or something else along those lines in which Joseve approves of.
  4. red linked categories are a VERY TOUCHY subject because of protests. See Sitush's red category and that was taken to ANI when added by multiple editors.
Bgwhite (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I will refrain from making any category changes in the userspace in the future.    FDMS  4    00:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
FDMS4, remove them if they are highly offensive or it's not a user category, but talk afterword. I've removed a cat from a User's pages in which the cat was highly offensive about women and Jews. One user was indef blocked, but I can't remember the other. I've removed the category:living people from user pages countless times. If it is obvious it should be removed, remove, then talk. If in doubt, talk first. Bgwhite (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Got it, and lowered my doubt threshold.    FDMS  4    00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tech News: 2014-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [1] [2]
  • The MediaWiki API now shows information in a nice format. You can translate it in translatewiki.net. [3]

File information cleanup

Problems

  • Wikimedia Labs was broken for a few hours on Thursday. It was due to a hardware problem. [4]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf7) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 11, and on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
  • You can now use more editing tools for tables in VisualEditor. You can add rows and columns, merge cells, and edit table captions. [5] [6]
  • The style and insert menus in the toolbar of VisualEditor now show fewer tools. This helps you see the most common tasks. You can see all items by clicking "More". [7]
  • The way windows inside VisualEditor work has changed. VisualEditor should be faster and have fewer bugs. [8]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request on 19:46:06, 10 November 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Wehberf


Thank you for taking the time to Review the Robolo Cigar Page. It was denied and I can understand why. The content size was taken from Best Cigar Prices website. A Robolo sized cigar is a generally accepted cigar size and is used in common conversation throughout the industry. Almost all the major cigar makers create cigars in this size specifically. New Global Marketing and their distribution channel, Best Cigar Prices own the trademark for this specific cigar size.

The problem is that the lack of a wiki entry doesn't reflect it's usage and it's roughly akin to listing all the types of cars out there such as sedan, sports car, van, station wagon, but leaving out an SUV as common car type.

Honestly I don't know how to describe a cigar that is "4.5 x 60" without saying it's 4.5 x 60 .. cigars are sized by 2 factors: length, which is given in inches, and “ring gauge,” a measure of a cigar’s diameter divided into 64ths of an inch..

I am looking for guidance... how can I get this article approved... it's something that really needs to be done to enhance Wikipedia's entry for cigar sizes.


Wehberf (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bollklubben Support

Jag är ordförande i BKS. Så den ändring jag gjorde bryter inte mot något. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrChairman1914 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Faktiskt så bröt du mot flera regler.
  1. du verkar ha skapat flera konton, mot användarvillkoren.
  2. du har en intressekonflikt. (COI = conflict of intrest)
  3. du lade till material från en annan webbsida. Allt material måste vara fri från copyright.
  4. Wikipedia är inte till för reklam. Material på er egen hemsida är troligen lite förskönad och tar självklart inte upp allt, utan bara "bra" saker om er.
(t) Josve05a (c) 08:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Ja, jag har två konton. Detta för att jag glömt vad mitt första konto heter. Därför skapade jag ett nytt.
2. Så för att man insatt i något så får man inte skriva om saker?
3. Är inte coppat rakt av. Det är omredigerat. Och varför är texten i sig fel? Den stämmer, det är en historiebeskrivning Det är länkat.
4. Är inte wikipedia till för att man ska kunna redigera/lägga till/korrigera? Är det någon som anser att det finns något negativt om BKS är det väl upp till den användaren att skriva det?
  1. Okej, det är ok.
  2. Man får, men det avråds starkt.
  3. Spelar ingen roll. Det var väldigt likt. Läs gärna Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (på engelska). "Den stämmer"...kanske den gör, men det är en primär källa som vill göra reklam. Spelar ingen roll om det är sant. Källor på WIkipedia skall komma från tredje parts källor, som tidningar, nyheter etc. som kan "verifiera" att det är sant.
  4. " Är inte wikipedia till för att man ska kunna redigera/lägga till/korrigera?" Jo, den är till för alla att redigera. Men inte att alla ska få redigera allt, eller med vad de vill.
(t) Josve05a (c) 09:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Okej, jag ändrar texten. Så att den inte kan ses som kopierad. Lägger endast till den kalla faktan som finns. //MrChairman1914 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrChairman1914 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #133

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Upcoming office hours for Commons (Nov 20th) and Wikidata (Dec 3rd). More details on the office hour page.
    • GLAM/Wikidata hackathon in Amsterdam
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Help make sure these items have labels in your language
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Work on reviving the tree of life built from Wikidata data
    • Added a "featured portal" badge (Q17580674)
    • Improved the performance of getting labels and sitelinks in Lua (and decreased the memory usage)
    • Did groundwork on applying page deletions to the repo
    • Refactor initialization of EntityView so that we can use batched label lookup for improved performance.
    • Added IRC to available protocolls for the URL datatype
    • Improved calendar model display
  • Monthly Tasks
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Tech News: 2014-47

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf8) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 12. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 18, and on all Wikipedias from November 19 (calendar).
  • The new search tool ("CirrusSearch") will be on the English Wikipedia from November 19. [9]

Move from Bugzilla to Phabricator

  • The tool to track bugs will change on November 21.
  • You won't be able to add or edit bugs between November 21 and November 24.
  • You can make the change easier for you by creating your account.
  • Bugzilla will be frozen after the change. You will see, edit and report bugs in Phabricator.
  • You can join two IRC chats to learn more about the change. The chats will be on Tuesday, November 18 at 16:00 (UTC) and 23:00 UTC. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Josve05a/Archives/2014. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Permission of files on Commons

This is reagrding the files listed on commons:User talk:Steve cedar jameson

Josve05a, I wrote an article on Steve Jameson, Artist. He gave me permission to use some of his paintings in the article. He uploaded the images for me. Recently he received a message from you to ascertain that he had given his permission. He was requested to send an email to a wiki address stating his permission. He told me he has done this. I am new to writing wiki articles. I hope all that is required has been done. Huma Irani Huma irani (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Huma irani: The email needs to come from you. Wikimedia requires a written permission to both allow us, WIkipedia, and other parties to use the file, and proof that you, the copright owner, agrees to license these files under a free license.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and c:Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not the uploaders own work.

(t) Josve05a (c) 18:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josve05a/Archives/2014/November&oldid=1143098033"