User talk:Wilkja19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:19, 28 February 2021

Welcome!

Hello, Wilkja19, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lil Yachty, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm JC7V7DC5768. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JC7V-constructive zone 22:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wilkja19. 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)[reply]

December 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on DJ Khaled. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilkja19! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yara Shahidi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING: Stop marking all of your edits as minor

Two months ago you were politely asked to stop marking all of your edits as minor. Since you decided to ignore that request, this is now a warning. Stop marking all of your edits as minor. Doing so is deceptive and disruptive editing. If you need more details about what is considered a minor edit, carefully read WP:MINOR. If you don't understand what is meant by a minor edit, ask on this talk page right now. If you falsely mark another edit as minor you could have your editing privileges removed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at ANI about your edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Continuing a long term pattern of marking all edits as WP:MINOR even when they are not. Full report at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Diego, Go! 'Wiki Page' Edits

I am concerned about the edit you made to the Go, Diego, Go! 'Wiki Page'. You removed the entire section on streaming availability, without any explanation. Would you mind explaining your justification for this edit. At first glance, it looked like vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMargan (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC) SMargan (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SMargan, the reason why they didn’t leave an edit summary and marked their edit as minor is probably due to a bug in the iOS app for Wikipedia. See this ANI thread for more information. GMXping! 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PorkchopGMX - I have never run into problems when leaving editing comments. Most know that feature is available on Wikipedia, but do not utilise it. This makes it a problem when the edit being made is particular problematic. SMargan (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You forgot to sign on your first post. I added {{unsigned}} to your comment to reflect that. If you see that the {{unsigned}} template has been added to your comment, do not sign again. This is because if you do, it will result in an incorrect timestamp and potentially confuse archiving bots. As for the talk page issue, the iOS app currently doesn’t send any in-app notifications when you get something on your talk page. You have to navigate to your talk page (the button is hidden in settings I think) to see the message. All of their edits have been made with the iOS app. People who don’t use the iOS app don’t get this issue. I hope this explains it further, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and happy holidays. GMXping! 04:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cherie Nowlan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Sullivan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complete lack of communication

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Failure to communicate or read messages, you are marking all edits as minor.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a follow-up on my talk page to the earlier problem that was reported at WP:ANI. (See above on your talk page for the prior block). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I thought the community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Wilkja19_marking_all_edits_as_minor was to do nothing about this? Especially given marking as minor is utterly useless and that software feature should be removed anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Failure to communicate' is often used as a reason for blocking. This editor just takes it to the extreme. They came to be noticed at ANI because of the minor edit issue, but it wasn't the most important reason. Any admin can unblock if they become convinced that the user will communicate in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other failures to communicate have been given? Is there any actual problem with their editing aside from marking as minor, as in a consequential problem with their editing where another editor has tried to communicate to them about this? Given that by my reading the community discussion established that the marking as minor, and lack of response by this editor for marking as minor, was not worth blocking the editor over. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No edit summaries and no usage of talk pages. No response to an ANI or to a prior block. This editor might as well *be* an unapproved bot because we have no idea what they are doing or why. Evidently some number of their changes are reverted, but it makes no difference to them. If they do respond and file an unblock request, it will be their first ever communication. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their reverted rate seems to be incredibly low. Of their last 250 edits, 15 were reverted, and 9 of those reverted by just 2 edits, so really that's 8 independent reverts across 250 edits... For an editor who has edited for 3 years & has 3,368 edits. Seemingly nobody had "communication issues" with this editor until someone decided to raise their marking as minor - which, again, is a totally useless software feature and the only time I personally see it mentioned is when it's used to block editors for misusing the feature. Note, also, that WP:ME is not a policy. Neither is WP:EDITSUMMARY, and plenty of admins actively fail to use them too.

Imo this block is contrary to the community discussion. And since they exclusively edit on the iOS app I'm pretty sure they won't get talk page notifications and they may not even see the block reason. Thank the WMF for that design oversight. So an unblock request seems unlikely. I request you reconsider this block if you can't point to a real issue with their editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's not a policy page, I can link to Wikipedia:Communication is required#Repeated complaints by multiple editors. On User talk:Wilkja19, I count seven complaints since July 2018 which are not about the 'minor edits' issue but are substantive complaints about their actual changes. Naturally they made no response to any of these. The page at WP:RADAR discusses the general issue of non-responsive editors, and actually suggests a partial block from article space as one of the options. Do you think that would be better? The page ends with "If an editor refuses to communicate, they are rejecting the idea of collaboration, and that is incompatible with what Wikipedia is and how it works.EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I'm not sure I quite follow your logic here. If the editor edits via iOS (which they do, exclusively) and we know that iOS editors don't get any alerts, I'm not sure how you expect them to know issues have been raised? This isn't 'refusing to communicate', it's 'being penalised for using an app that WMF built with a critical inherent flaw'. Best, Darren-M talk 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Ed, my personal view is that this editor should be allowed to edit as they have for 3 years, barring a real issue raised about their editing. The ANI and the VPT in December 2020 had access to the user's talk page history yet every editor who addressed the nature of their block decided we shouldn't block, explicitly noting also the ideals of the 'communication issue'. By my skim, most of their editing in article space is non-problematic. It's not their fault they exclusively use a crappily designed iOS app. As Levivich said, the solution to that is for us to all vote for WMF trustees who will select an ED who will properly fund and staff a development team. If anyone was looking for an example of how amazingly out-of-touch WMF devs are with the project, look no further than an editing app that doesn't provide talk page message or ping notifications. and EEng raised a technical issue that may account for the minor edits discrepancy.

This editor edits and cleans up TV articles, and as far as I can see are a net plus to the project. Note also that many of the warnings above are for minor edits or edit summaries. If a day comes when their edits are actually disruptive, and they refuse to communicate on them, then perhaps a block will be necessary. But afaics the editor is currently making no more editing errors than the average established editor, from a review of their contribs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. They won't communicate but they don't make many errors, so that means that no communication is required for the future? Do you think that would make sense as a policy? Should the WP:RADAR page be amended to state that its advice doesn't apply to anyone who uses the iOS interface? WP:CIR usually implies that people who may have some personal restrictions have ways of living up to the standards expected here, in spite of their restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RADAR is WP:JUSTANESSAY. It's all about a case by case basis. You admins aren't robots :) -- this editor has individual circumstances, which were considered at the ANI, and hopefully you can consider them too. If future disruption occurs, it can be dealt with at that point? In the meantime, surely we can cut the editor some slack? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, admins aren't robots??? E Eng 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving this one! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty $10 per link. E Eng 07:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this editor being tolerated and even encouraged? They change facts in articles without providing sources; they refuse to provide edit summaries; they falsely mark all their edits as minor; they refuse to communicate. This is obviously disruptive editing. I see no reason why they should not be blocked until at the absolute minimum they acknowledge that marking all their edits as minor is wrong. Andesitic (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a recent edit of theirs you undone at Félix Enríquez Alcalá - their edit seems to have been correct (the subject directed two episodes)? None of the entries in the list are sourced, which is pretty common for lists (for better or worse). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a core policy. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Has this editor ever provided a source for their changes? Making edits which seem to be correct does not exempt one from providing edit summaries, or excuse falsely marking all edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be noted that in all of the tables they're correctly updating the entries, there are no sources already (see WP:MINREF anyway). Reverting every change they make for edit summary / minor is disruptive, if you have no actual content dispute with their edits, and could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a content dispute with their edits. As I already explained: they are not explaining what they are doing; they are not providing reliable sources; they are falsely marking all their edits as minor. What sources already exist or don't exist in the article is irrelevant. Their simple refusal to communicate has nothing to do with what software they are using; it is their own choice, and it is obviously disruptive. Andesitic (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read: T275117, T274404. That's not a content dispute, it's just looking for a bone to pick, and it's WP:HOUNDING. I encourage you to desist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are choosing not to communicate, and their edits are problematic. What is your interest in pretending otherwise? Andesitic (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend can you deal with this please? imo this is hounding and [1][2][3][4] equally problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obliged to provide sources; that is a core policy. I am challenging what they are adding because their changes are always unexplained, unsourced and falsely marked as minor. No software prevents them from communicating, or providing sources, or leaving edit summaries, or forces them to mark edits as minor; that is their own disruptive choice. This editor has no exemption from core policies or community standards. Andesitic (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for Andesitic, perhaps you should spend more time improving articles for readers, like Wilkja is doing, rather than harassing editors and trying to get them sanctioned? For example, your edit at Special:Diff/1009126991,[5] amongst others, has made the encyclopaedia worse for readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review: Wilkja19. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've done nothing wrong, I have unblocked your account. I'm also placing a notice at the top of this page telling others that your software makes communication difficult. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gabrielle Ruiz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Better Things and Alone Together.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Clare Entertainment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Crane and Alan Burns.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :::::::{{u|Nyttend}} can you deal with this please? imo [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20210226235959&limit=15&target=Andesitic&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=2021-02-26 this] is hounding and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilkja19&diff=1009392757&oldid=1009136954&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilkja19&diff=1009414201&oldid=1009409670&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilkja19&diff=1009414899&oldid=1009414698&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wilkja19&diff=1009419858&oldid=1009415362&diffmode=source] equally problematic. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 ::::::::The user is '''obliged''' to provide sources; that is a [[WP:V|core policy]]. I am challenging what they are adding because their changes are always unexplained, unsourced and falsely marked as minor. No software prevents them from communicating, or providing sources, or leaving edit summaries, or forces them to mark edits as minor; that is their own disruptive choice. This editor has no exemption from core policies or community standards. [[User:Andesitic|Andesitic]] ([[User talk:Andesitic|talk]]) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
+:::::::As for Andesitic, perhaps you should spend more time improving articles for readers, like Wilkja is doing, rather than harassing editors and trying to get them sanctioned? For example, your edit at [[Special:Diff/1009126991]],[https://in.mashable.com/entertainment/20165/for-all-mankind-season-2-review-an-ambitious-sci-fi-show-that-tries-to-be-a-perfect-mix-of-adventure] amongst others, has made the encyclopaedia ''worse'' for readers. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==