Jump to content

User talk:Britishfinance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→WMF noticeboard: new section
Line 724: Line 724:


The tag relates to your wp status, not professional status. [[User:Ret Tax Guy|Ret Tax Guy]] ([[User talk:Ret Tax Guy|talk]]) 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The tag relates to your wp status, not professional status. [[User:Ret Tax Guy|Ret Tax Guy]] ([[User talk:Ret Tax Guy|talk]]) 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

== WMF noticeboard ==

I agree with what you wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=prev&oldid=904617487 here] (though could you consider correcting your typo from 'formerly' to 'formally'?). There is [[Wikipedia:Community bulletin board]] but that is not what I think you are looking for. There are pages over at the WMF wikis where formal announcements can be made, but there does need to be somewhere here as well. It is amazing in some ways that no such centralised contact area exists. It drives home how anarchic the site can be. The best place I found for the WMF was over on meta at [[:meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard]]. I am going to suggest to [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] that a copy of the statement be formally posted there. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:46, 4 July 2019


Why did you decide to remove my uses of the {{interlanguage link}} template, which provides a link to the other Wikipedia while still showing that we don't have an article in English wiki (and possibly nudging interested editors into creating it)? PamD 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Isn't it more useful to give readers a blue-link to their Wikipedia Hungarian articles, which they can translate with one right-click? I think the red-link implies to most readers that such an article doesn't exist and therefore not to click on it? I didn't realise it myself despite the fact I had been editing the article (and contributing on it at AfD). Not sure therefore it is such a useful tool (by definition, hitting a blue-linked hu-WP article implies there is no en-WP article)? However, revert if you feel strongly about it. Britishfinance (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The small blue "hu" link goes to the Hungarian article, and disappears when the English article is created. With your method, we could still have a link to the Hungarian article after someone had created an English article, as they wouldn't know about your link. I can't immediately find a policy or guideline suggesting either your or my technique as preferred. PamD 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Pity the colour wasn't also blue (or at least not red). In fairness, your work on rescuing the article is what will (hopefully) keep it (and got me interested in also helping it at AfD); you also have a lot more experience than I. You decide for both of us. all the best. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary, I hope?

I'm a big proponent of stepping away from the project when you need some time to focus on other things or cool off or just because, but it'd be great to see you back here when you are ready! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechaun economics

Paul Krugman just included a link to Leprechaun economics in a tweet on @paulkrugman [1]. I can retire happy now! Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! You brought, in what, under 18 months?, a (badly-needed) whole new level of professional attention to a set of articles in the finance space, and it is a pity that WP loses you back to Real Life, but hopefully not for long. For now, a mention from Saint Paul Krugman is a good note on which to rest, indeed!79.104.6.204 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Great work with Building a Better Legal Profession! Marquardtika (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times and The Irish Times have mentioned you

Sunday Times Irish Times The upshot seems to be that they think you must be a paid editor since you contributes so much. So are you a paid editor? If you wish to comment for a story in WP:Signpost please email me directly. I'll likely check the history at WP:COIN in a few hours and may comment or ask questions over there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Oh wow, I am just seeing this. Definitely not a paid editor. Am knowledgeable in UK and Irish tax and came to WP to fix some tax-related articles that I felt were poor (plus I had a work break). Caught the bug and found myself writing WP articles on all kinds of subjects, and getting involved in NPPR and AfD etc. Ended up having to re-write a lot of my earlier tax-related articles when I (finally) realized how to properly write a WP article (took me circa. 6 months to write decent material). My Leprechaun economics re-write was referenced by nobel prize winner Paul Krugman on his twitter feed (a major high point). Plus, my re-write of Double Irish arrangement was recommended by the US Council on Foreign Relations as the "best source" on the topic (another high point). Not keen on the exposure of these newspaper articles (not a high point). Have returned to full-time work and have less WP time (plus, had a rough experience on AfD that dampened my WP enthusiasm). No problem answering any WP:COIN questions. It is not a process I am familiar with, but as long as my privacy is maintained, I will be as transparent as possible. Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Ironically because I was just cleaning up my user pages before retiring, I had listed almost all the WP articles I have written which might be helpful. This list does not include articles that I was not the main editor on, or some earlier articles that I think need to be re-written to bring to a decent WP standard; one of which I am trying to re-write in my sandbox now before retiring (I am trying to do at least one WP article that uses the full Harvard-citation type structure before retiring). kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I have to get up to speed on this. One mistake I made was thinking that Paddy Cosgrave worked with IDA. Do you know how he is involved in this? But I guess the key part of the Sunday Times article is:
(Banned editor Kevin) Sammon said: “Wikipedia enables people to edit articles anonymously so there is no way to know who or what is behind Britishfinance. It seems clear that only a well-resourced professional entity would be capable of making this number of edits over such a period. From analysis of the edits, it is clear that this person or persons do not have an interest in presenting Ireland’s economic model in a positive light. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to create and link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, tax and Brexit.”
I'd love to get your reaction to that. If you'd prefer to email me (off-the-record for now) that would be fine (until I say "we'll be on the record from here on out"). As with any Wikipedian I would never out your real world identity, but refer to you by your user name. Like I said I'd love to get your reaction to the above paragraph. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: I am happy to do this on my talk page for now. I believe Paddy Cosgrove tweeted a reference to several WP articles, including QIAIFs and Martin Shanahan in a series of tweets on his twitter page [2] [3]. I created the QIAIF article but not the Martin Shanahan article. Shanahan is the CEO of the IDA and when I came across it I discovered that it read like it was written by a UDP/COI editor. As I began to remove the WP:PROMO element of the Shanahan article I was reverted by a series of new/IP editors. Eventually, they revealed themselves to be the same source – the marketing department of the IDA, which is led by Kevin Sammon. Sammon made some unpleasant personal attacks on me on the Shanahan talk page which were false. Sammon confused WP with a brochure rather than an encyclopedia. I decided to leave the Shanahan article and have not returned to it since. I have not encountered Sammon/IDA marketing department since. This is a hobby, and I am not interested in being on WP for conflict or edit warring. Britishfinance (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the feedback. The next thing I'll try to figure out is whether Shanahan just doesn't know that Wikipedia is not an advertising site, or whether he thinks it doesn't matter - that he'll never get caught, or that he is now completely reformed, or ... Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Thank you. It is really very kind of you to say that! Unfortunately, these newspaper articles have revived the "Irish tax trolls", and a whole series of Irish tax-related articles have been vandalized/PROD'ed for deletion today, including the Double Irish arrangement. It is a losing battle I'm afraid, and I am not sure that other WP editors understand these articles and are afraid to template vandalism. However, your kind comments are much appreciated. Kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've also noticed your editing because I thought it was particularly good – but about hills and mountains rather than finance. Not much money to be made in writing about hills (in my experience!). But maybe it's all a fiendish plot. Best wishes and good luck.Thincat (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should mention this assessment to the attack editor(s) of today - indeed, while one can draw some tough conclusions from some of the articles, anyone who thinks these are hard on Ireland has never read certain Irish commentators, never mind some very angry and bitter ones from France, Germany, etc. I agree re. the professional tone and academic approach.SeoR (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words Thincat. There is even less money for writing about finance on WP! I haven't seen a single bad/aggressive edit on tax-related articles on any other content but Ireland-related content (and I have over-hauled the main Tax haven and Tax inversion WP articles). Your comments are much appreciated however. Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Barnstars

Sorry to see the semi-retired headline, but I hope it's just for a while. I gather from a quick scan of the page that it was a combination of a return to routine work and a badly-handled AfD (so sad when that happens). And I was just back from a trip myself and thinking it was time to recognise some of the amazing work of the last year. Hard to credit that from my first sighting of your sig editing some neglected corners of Irish article space its been only 367 days, or so :-) Anyway, as I see you are still about, I proceed with:

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for committed editing, and as needed, re-editing, of key articles on Irish taxation and economics - the top five edited >7500 times, and so much more useful and readable after. Amazing!

and

The Business and Economics Barnstar
for contributions to WP Ireland articles and elsewhere, with diligence and professionalism

Don't be a stranger! SeoR (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And further, reading a little more, commiserations on being targeted by people in other lines of work who do not understand the rights and wrongs of Wikipedia. IDA Ireland does great work, but that does not excuse the behaviours mentioned, and no State body should be defending what most people would probably clearly, and instinctively, understand to be questionable practices - of no benefit to Ireland, as it happens (tax takes like 0.0004% do not count). Not that Ireland is the worst, at all - there are other EU members doing "very special" deals, for example - but anyway, Wikipedia's task is to elucidate, not cover or talk over. Keep up the good work, when the mood takes (or for fresher territory, do more of the great mountain / climbing editing.) SeoR (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SeoR ! Really appreciate the barnstars and your kind sentiments. What started out as wanting to fix a few Irish-finance related articles, turned into a full-on addiction. I did try to fix many Irish tax-related articles by replacing all the references with high-quality academic references (or notable other publications), and after about 6 months I think I was writing proper WP standard articles (I even went back and re-wrote many earlier attempts). However, it appears that these newspaper articles have revived the "Irish tax trolls", and loads of Irish tax-related articles have been vandalized/PROD'ed today (e.g. Double Irish arrangement, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland, and Ireland as a tax haven‎. It is a losing battle I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I am very appreciative of the quality of editing and referencing made. I think I already bumped into one bit of odd "attack" editing (I see plenty of misbehavior in Pending Changes work, but it's not so common on Irish articles these days), and will check for more.SeoR (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the most egregious behavior has been tackled by others - good. And I did moderate the lede of the "IE as tax haven" article, as this is an allegation (as noted in the article, Ireland has never been so accused by the EU or OECD) and is a corporate-focused thing. But it's not like it's news that some major sources find Ireland's tax arrangements of concern, it has been discussed in parliaments, EU assemblies and more, and much in literature, and the Double Irish and more have been known to tax practitioners for a very long time, so I do not understand the personal attacks on yourself. I will visit ANI now too.SeoR (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for that SeoR. With all these articles (EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland, Double Irish, Leprechaun economics, Tax haven), any basic google search will throw up thousands of Tier 1 RS; they are notable topics with major financial impact; and most importantly, very interesting to any reader. That is why I wanted to do a better job on them. Your edits are much appreciated! Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that the ANI discussion is over, and that you're still editing away, when time allows. And I was optimistic that the community would not just fold and allow a "losing battle" - I'm here a good while, and I think many editors take pride in our objectivity, and in not giving in to trolls, vandals and gremlins. So far, at least, I think the line has held, and standards have been upheld, and even IP edits were not one-way. Although I remain very unhappy about those odd edits a 237 address made to the Varadkar article, that smelled really "off." I am a little puzzled at the disappearance of Headless Nick, but probably some real life matter, and I do hope they return, and we can all work on the questions raised, and answered. See you around, I hope, not just in this topic area, but also in Hills, Mountains and Climbing - hard to credit but when doing a little tidying in Sport lately, I discovered that the Mountaineering Council does not even have an article, and whatever about rock / lead climbing, the Irish bouldering scene is pretty much missing in action too.SeoR (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR. Thanks for that, and I very much appreciated your input at ANI; even made the Washington Post today. The section in the Varadakar article was not appropriate for his BLP. He has a very incidental role in this area apart from re-iterating State positions. I will keep an eye on other articles linking to it. I had a notion of doing the "Ring of Kerry" as a better article (with all the individual spots upgraded); ironically, I do think that this is an area that an Irish State body should be supporting?? I think geographic-type articles are perfect for WP as they are more "stable" (e.g. need less updating once written). However, RL is getting busier now, so I will have to come back to it. Many thanks again! Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad that Ireland as a country is embroiled in these matters, but at least it is debated; I'm not sure how much this happens in longer-playing "tax efficient" locations - but I really regret that it touched Wikipedia, and I am very glad that we as a community are now warned. I agree re Varadkar, and others, they inherited a situation, in this and many other areas, and certainly it was never part of their personal spiel. Geo articles are both more stable, and less tricky, so that could be a good area, indeed. And in the pure climbing space, without replacing proper manuals and route photos with markup, a few more quality articles like Alladie and Dalkey Quarry would help all concerned. So, when RL allows - and I myself am just back from 3+ days offline, as has happened several times this year - looking forward to seeing you around.SeoR (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR. I have overhauled (almost finished) most of the big tax haven tax inversion offshore financial centre articles on WP without a single disruptive edit from a non-Irish IP (and some good compliments). It is puzzling as to why some Irish editors have this attitude. It was interesting that just a few days ago, another academic study showed that Irish media are not helping Irish people understand these issues [4]. I don't think that Irish people realise there are US policy think tanks that have been producing 400-page dissections of Ireland's tax code for decades (e.g. there is nothing that Washington/OECD does not know about it). However, since Trump and the TCJA (and now the new OECD BEPS 2.0), things have started to fundamentally change in the way the US views Ireland in a way not seen for decades (if ever). Hopefully, the articles will keep people better informed.
Have you seen my MacGillycuddy Reeks, Brandon Group, Galtymore type-articles? I couldn't find any more good climbing walls so started on hills instead? Having fixed the Lists of mountains in Ireland article, I was working my way down but stopped at Baurtregaum, which needs updating too. However, I do feel that Ireland lacks a major WP series on the Ring of Kerry, arguably, its biggest tour? Anyway, thanks again, and look forward to seeing you around too. Britishfinance (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should indent, but as a closing comment, I'll go out on a limb. First, sorry for not replying sooner; I was off for part of early May, and was on limited time and catching up after, etc. Yes, I have seen those articles, and other work on places in Kerry. I must try to add to some. The Reeks article is especially interesting as I have McGillycuddy cousins still farming in a remote valley deep inside there, and context on the family links (many people in Irish families have quite strong feelings about claimed "head of family" lines, as these are usually based on external models of descent, not the old Gaelic rules). I agree that a series and category around the Ring of Kerry would be a plus. I understand about the climbing walls, a very limited base in Ireland. That said, a good article on Climbing (sport) in Ireland, and maybe also one on Bouldering, would be good. But such articles are not so easy to write well, and could be a challenge on sourcing, though the MCI / MI journal would be one solid base. Very glad to see you're still editing away.SeoR (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the relevant section is at WP:ANI#Accusation_of_undisclosed_WP:PAID_editing_/_large_scale_reversion_of_edits GirthSummit (blether) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(since archived to: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits) Britishfinance (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I see the ANI thread has been closed. I'm sorry that turned into such a long, drawn-out affair, and for any stress it put you under. I hope you can see why I thought it was necessary to raise the case, but regardless I'm sorry it went on for as long as it did, with all the repeated aspersions. I hope it hasn't put you off editing if you get time with your new real life stuff, and that there are no hard feelings? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Girth Summit. It was a pretty dispiriting process. A random new (unilkely) editor comes to WP and starts deleting large sections of articles and making wild allegations; and continues to do it (with other IP-socks), and doesn't get blocked. An admin makes further allegations, all of which are fully responded to, and then disappears. I don't have any hard feelings to you, and your ANI was not done out of any bias against me; however, it would have been appreciated if you had spoken to me first about your concerns (you would have seen the matter being discussed on my talk page above). There is an article in the Washington Post today that summarises the whole affair well Ireland is a tax haven. Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably fair comment - I'll have to think about how I could have dealt with this better. Perhaps I should have spoken to you first (or, as you say, at least read through your talk page first) - not knowing how to judge which 'side' was right, I went straight to a community board rather than engaging with you directly, but  that might not have been the best move. I'm glad it's eventually resolved though, and without wanting to sound like a patronising git, thanks for all the work you've put into those articles. GirthSummit (blether) 22:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit. Thanks for that, it is appreciated. kind regards. Britishfinance (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question re L-QIAIF

Hi British Finance - regarding the relationship between S110 and L-QIAIFs and these sentences: "In June 2018, the Central Bank of Ireland reported that €55 billion of U.S.-owned distressed Irish assets, equivalent to almost 25% of Irish GNI*, moved out of Section 110 SPVs.[2][3][36] The L-QIAIF, and the ICAV wrapper, in particular, is expected to become an important structure for managing Irish tax on Irish assets in a confidential manner.[c][37]" Is there an assertion that "vulture funds" are moving from using 110 to L-QIAIFs, and is there data to support this? Central Bank doesn't appear to have data about this, so wondering how else this can be documented. NotCynyster (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NotCynyster. There is a quarterly CBI document that is not published in the public domain but is circulated outside the CBI and can be obtained. It cannot be used as a WP:V source in WP. This report does show the funds moving from Section 110 to QIAIFs and L-QIAIFs (doesn't split them apart, but QIAIFs are not suitable for S110 assets). I suspect Fianna Fail had been given a copy of it, and hence their assertion in the SBP article (which we can reference in WP). Anybody working in Irish corporate tax has a least one client who moved their S110 to an L-QIAIF; and they all did it at the same time. Britishfinance (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turned out to be another IDA Ireland WP:SOCK
Thank you for this. I have lots more (relatively technical) questions. Is there a chance we could connect? Via NotCynyster@protonmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.66.78 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2019 213.86.66.78 (UTC)
I'm watching BF's talk page at the moment and given scrutiny and privacy issues may suggest this is done on WP. I also note the above comment was not signed risking imposterment.11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC) (Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Hi NotCynyster (assuming that it was your IP above). Unfortunately, I am not happy to discuss via email given the off-wiki attention I have attracted. I am happy to respond to questions on the Talk Page of these articles (it might help other editors as well). If you have generic questions, ask them here, HOWEVER, given the off-wiki attention, I may not respond to them all (to protect my own privacy). Hope you understand. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - ok. I understand. Trying to hone in on the numbers and the non-public Central Bank report. The L-QIAIF section point about the €55bn refers to several articles, [1][2] The Irish Times article seems to refer to this statistical release by the Central bank <Ref.https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/statistics/data-and-analysis/other-financial-sector-statistics/financial-vehicle-corporations/2018q1-irish-special-purpose-entities.pdf?sfvrsn=2</ref> which does not mention "US owned distressed Irish assets", but to "a small number of non-securitisation (other) SPEs no longer availing of taxation provisions under Section 110" at the same time as saying that there was a decline in Russian sponsored SPEs. The SBP article too appears to make reference to this - or rather to it via a letter written by Stephen Donnelly TD to Minister Donohoe referring to the L-QIAIFs as a 'new nirvana'. Donnelly's letter says it is his 'understanding' that a substantial portion of the *may have been moved to other tax-free vehicles including L-QIAIFs, but doesn't make any reference to Central Bank documentation underlying this. So basically trying to find out more details about the unpublished Central Bank report in your answer.

I apologize for not knowing exactly how to use the 'talk' page and the conventions on how to sign off/sign, but I do object to being called a troll. I am not. I asked genuine questions, based on reviewing primary material and interviewing primary sources which led me to believe that I needed to review/query/understand better some of the elements which you have written about in greater detail. So it is unfortunate that I am being discouraged to ask questions, or query anything in this context. I would have thought that is exactly what Wikipedia is for. I understand that there are sensitivities, but it is disappointing to be branded a troll for asking questions. NotCynyster (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) NotCynyster[reply]

  1. ^ Mark Paul (28 June 2018). "Tax-free funds once favoured by 'vultures' fall €55bn: Regulator attributes decline to the decision of funds to exit their so-called 'section 110 status'". Irish Times. Retrieved 26 April 2019. Regulator attributes decline to the decision of funds to exit their so-called 'section 110 status'
  2. ^ Jack Horgan-Jones (29 July 2018). "Vulture funds in new move to slash tax bills and escape regulation". Sunday Business Post. Retrieved 26 April 2019. Fianna Fáil claims that funds have discovered a "new nirvana". Documents also reveal new strategy to avoid regulation. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Use of English Variant

Hi, I seem to notice you are using British English for articles about the Republic of Ireland when Irish English might seem more appropriate and using a corresponding template on the talk page. I sort of have a bucket and shovel approach to this (which I assume is about right but may not be) which is England/Scotland/Wales/NI based article ... use British English; Republic of Ireland ... use Irish English; India ... use Indian English. For most practical purposes at my level of competence these three are likely broadly equivalent and I'd likely write the same way myself. I'm not sure if there is policy defining this but is there any reason you are not use Irish Englsh for obviously Republic of Ireland articles? I'd also suggest considering not to self-assess articles to which you have added significant content that could be controversial ... I've not seen one of your self assessments as incorrect and from memory I believe its permittend up to 'B-class ... I'm just not sure its best practice but this is a personal view. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Djm-leighpark. I had some issues with US-based editors mixing US spelling into some of my Irish articles (as some involve US firms a lot). I didn't realise that there was an Irish spelling template but I will use that instead. I understand re the rating point. I checked this with an admin who said that it was not against policy but that to err on the side of caution (which I have always done, and haven't been reverted yet; touch wood). My last one was on Gemma O'Doherty here. I agree however that it is not something that I really want to do, however, I also don't like leaving an article for months that have been materially expanded/upgraded with an out-of-date rating? Anyway point taken and fairly made. Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Britishfinance,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New River, Arizona

Hello Britishfinance, I am responding to reversions to the "New River, Arizona" wiki page. A group of neighbors have asked me to perform revisions, which will also include updates to facts, historical information, etc. and gathering necessary information requires my neighbor's inputs. For a brief amount of time, we expect the page to be incomplete until this information is updated and added.

As the recent "incorporation effort" was just shut down by the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona yesterday, my neighbors wanted, actually demanded, an immediate revision to the New River page to remove any information about the recent incorporation effort. I am dismayed to see that you, whom does not seem to have any stake in our small community, continue to revise the page for our community.

The statement that you will have the page locked is concerning as I do not see how you would have authority or ownership over our community, and we wish to retain authorship and editorial rights over information concerning our community. I respectfully ask that you divest yourself as an editor of our wiki. If you were granted authority by someone to do so, I would appreciate the contact name(s) of the person(s) that gave you this authority.

Please validate your authority to revise anything we, the residents of New River, choose to post about our home. As of this moment, I do not expect any further revisions from you regarding New River, Arizona. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowayjoseaz (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowayjoseaz ... in my opinion this is not the way to go about addressing your concerns, especially as you may seem to have a WP:COI. I perhaps suggest raising at WP:TEAHOUSE to get neutral advice and entering discussions on the article talk page. ThankyouDjm-leighpark (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark. I agree and share your views on this. Am going to copy this to the Talk Page of the New River, Arizona article and reply from there. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed "Is There Any Legitimacy to Gab's "Free Speech" Claim?"

long discussion

First let me state up front I don't object to the section being closed. It's been open a long time, and at some point you have to call it. However having said that I am compelled to note that the question was never answered directly by anyone. Zero opinions, lots of distracting and off-topic chatter, but the fundamental question persists. Is there any legitimacy to Gab's claim of free speech, or not? What's the next step? How does an Editor that wants to assert the idea that there is some legitimacy to Gab's claim of Free Speech, but is up against a group of Editors that refuse to engage on that question. The question was intended to provoke discussion and arrive at consensus, and now that it is closed, the same group of Editors that refused to engage will now claim that consensus was achieved when the section asking the question was closed. What's the solution? I would be satisified if the Editors that make a routine practice of shading all Gab's statements listed in the RS as "claims", and all corporate or political organization's statements as "accepted facts" would simply spell that out as some kind of over-arching policy, instead of squashing discussion on a case-by-case basis every time someone is at variance with this unofficial, unstated and unenunciated policy. I don't see resolution here, and I'm wondering 1) If you do, and 2) What that resolution might be. This is coming on the heels of another, unrelated situation I read about at the Administrator's Noticeboard, where one Editor refused to engage with others, and that lack of engagement was one of the negatives listed when making an overall assessment and decision by the Administrator(s). I also don't understand why some Administrator doesn't step in and start laying down clear guidelines, etc... because what I see is a catfight with little to no regard to Wikipedia Policy. With regard to Wikipedia being a "mainstream encyclopeida", sure, but in other articles, dissenting perspectives are listed, at least a general outline of counter-arguments are made, minority opinions, etc... They get a little "controversy" section, or whatever. I see zero desire on the part of the more experienced Editors working on that Article to do anything like that, despite a continuous stream of complaints of "bias", etc... from IP Editors and inexperienced Editors with accounts. One Editor has been banned from Wikipedia after attempting to edit this Article, another was threatened into removing themself from the Article, I've been given a good hazing for my attempts at trying to "do something" (pretty much anything), and the dynamic continues unchecked.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tym Whittier: The issue is that Gab's mission, according to a lot of Tier 1 RS is not a noble one. Even when the FT article (as I posted on the Talk Page), covers its mission, it heavily qualifies itself (e.g. Nonetheless, much horror still lurks on Dissenter — including hateful and anti-Semitic opinions that need challenging). There has already been a lot of discussion on the Talk Page about the subject, and imho, the article is true and reflective of the main RS on the subject. Britishfinance (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. My initial response is "What could be more "noble" than 1st Amendment Free Speech rights?". But that's not my "developing Wikipedia Editor response. That's the one I decided was a "bad idea". I assume your use of the word "noble" is more "term of art" (meaning pertaining to Wikipedia) than "personal opinon". I've read (what seems to me to be) a lot of stuff on Wikipeida (policies, guidelines, essays, etc...) and have never seen this quality of "noble purpose" used before. I'm trying to learn. If it's your opinion, I'd rather avoid discussion, because opinions vary from Editor-to-Editor, and my primary purpose is to become a more-procient Editor. However if there's some Wikipedia-based reasons why you use that term, I'm very interested to learn. Also I don't dispute the fact that virtually all of the RS is negative and condemnatory of Gab (or Dissenter), however there are glimpses of a commentariat in the RS that is at least willing to ask the question fairly in the title, even if the entire body of the Article is condemnatory, such as the cite you provided today. On a personal note, I recommend you watch the 5 episodes of the made-for-TV show "Chernobyl", if you have not already done so, and I'll explain why if you ask. Thanks again for your response, and (hopefully) willing to expand my Wikipedia education.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tym Whittier: Oddly, Chernobyl is top of my list now that I am coming to the end of Billions (also recommended). WP is a pleasure to use when just doing the obvious - summarizing reliable independent sources. All of the issues/conflict/angst stems from not wanting to do the obvious. Drawing out nuanced conclusions (that aren't obvious in RS), or conclusions that aren't really there. WP is not about free speech etc. (although it is a very open platform), it is about summarizing the obvious. I recommend you spend a few weeks at WP:AfD. It is instructive to see articles that people fought long and hard over 5 years ago, get deleted without any fuss today. Generally, with time, the obvious becomes even more obvious. Things are were nuanced, become obvious. It is a great lesson in avoiding wasting time on anything that is not obvious. Long-term, only the obvious survives on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikipedia is not about "free speech", however I believe Gab is. I also like Billions. Except for the stupid episode where they were boxing. Favorite Character: Taylor Mason. I'll keep your "obvious is obvious" statment in mind.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You've violated WP:3RR by reverting four different editors at BitChute. Please self-revert. wumbolo ^^^ 22:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really advise against any reversion. [5] shows the current version is the same as 27 May which to all intents and purposes is the same reverted to by Wumbolo at 26 may. It also is the same at that supported by Ponyo and seems to be that essentially supported by the talk discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Djm-leighpark, that was my intention. I also suspected that two of the IPs where the same editor (used the same language of "framing" in their edit summary) here [6] and here [7]. However Wumbolo, if you feel strongly about it, please do revert me and I will leave it. thanks. 10:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019 Sharad Pawar

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sharad Pawar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have now reverted other editors over 3 times, including reverting edits where the other editors accepted your suggestions and accordingly improved the content. You need to discuss any concerns you have on the Talk Page of the article and get consensus from other editors on your views. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing on this page PJ1729 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An occasional outcome of supporting WP:AIV work on WP. The new editor above was pasting in Facebook, Youtube and Quora references (although using full WP-standard citation format) to an Indian political BLP here (despite it being their second ever edit on WP).Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction Symbol

Britishfinance: I tried to post this on the talk page, but it now appears locked. Someone who was asked to leave Extinction Rebellion (not by me) due to abusive conduct is going around trying to discredit the symbol and XR in general. This has been going on for months on various private XR forums. It's known who they are. They've got a range of apparent grudges involving the group finances and other things, but one of the other things they're doing is trying to make untrue claims about who the symbol creator is. They keep changing Wikipedia as well as sending weird hectoring and accusatory emails to people, emailing companies with vaguely similar logos and falsely posing as a representative of XR or the symbol project and trying to get into discussions with them about legal matters, etc. Just basically trying to cause trouble for the symbol project and XR generally. None of which is wanted. They seem to have become obsessed with the symbol because they seem to think that it was copied from ancient symbols and that either the creator of the symbol or XR are in a secret plot to somehow eventually gain financially from it, which couldn't be further from the truth. The person making these edits also has an objection to the conditions attached to the symbol of non-commercial use only. This arose because they wanted to make products with it on and were told this wasn't possible, which angered them.

When the the symbol was first created it was cross-promoted on the 'Xylo' website (as well as elsewhere), as a way to publicise it. A couple of street art fan blog posts from many years ago incorrectly linked the two projects, probably because no information was given at the time about the creator of the symbol. The person who keeps editing the article is merely reposting incorrect and unverified information. They've been told this via email by various people involved, including the people who made the original posts, yet still they persist. It wasn't the 'artist's signature' as claimed in these latest false revisions, or copied from ancient symbols or anything else. It's just a stylised hourglass and circle (planet), as stated on the official symbol website (which has existed since 2011). There are also other reasons why this person's actions are deliberately compromising other people's security, but I'm reluctant to publicly state them here. If you would like to contact the email address on the official symbol website then we can go into much more detail. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.118.26 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@150.143.118.26: Thanks for that. As I said, on WP we handle extremely controversial content and media and are have tools to handle such situations. Where things go wrong it where editors get shock/frustrated by an edit and want to fix it straight-away, and thus become part of the "edit war". Trust the system and just post your concerns on the Talk Page (several of us are now watching this talk page) and it will be addressed. In a few days time the Talk Page will be unlocked again and open to normal editing. By then I should have helped further improve the referencing in this article. It would be great if you have any more sources (per WP:RS) that might help the artilce; just past the URLs onto the talk page and I can assess from there and add as required. We can't use blogs etc, but articles like The Guardian source are very welcome in Wikipedia (or any other source that is notable enough to have a WP article itself is a rough guide). Hope that makes sense. If you have any issues, just leave a note here on my Talk Page, and I will see it. Thanks. (note - every time you publish something in WP, make sure to add four "~" symbols after the last full stop as your signature). Britishfinance (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this refers to me, please allow me to address it.
Firstly, you're using "IP editors" in a derrogatory manner so as to suggest they are unrelaible, of a lower status, or whatever. That's just not correct according to policy.
Try "editing while logged out", as Goldfrog23/ESP appears to be using the 150.143.***.*** IPs.
Secondly, I've never been a member of Extinction Rebellion, nor have I been asked to asked to leave. This is a complete fabrication on their behalf.
Simple fact is, XYLO is currently remarketing themselves as Goldfrog ESP and promoting their work as that is reasonable to document where the referenes exist.
Lastly, as written, the problem The Guardian article it is in essence, the artist and editor quoting an article where they themselves have been quoted, as are other, therefore we have a distinct feedback loop going on, that is a fairly unique problem that most certain strays into WP:COI.
The Hastings Independent Press is actually a real world newspaper and not just a blog.
Thank you --82.132.213.209 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "derogatory" about being an IP editor and nothing in my comments that imply that it is a "derogatory" term.
On WP we ignore statements about editors backgrounds etc.; it doesn't mean anything on WP which is anonymous; you (or 150.143.118.26) could be anybody.
What we do care about is summarising reliable independent secondary sources (per WP:RS) on topics; that is the main focus.
Several RS attribute the creator of the symbol as ESP (or Goldfrog ESP), and so we state that in the article (although we note that there is still uncertainty).
I have not read anything about XYLO in the RS, and therefore there is no mention of XYLO in the article? What XYLO tries to do outside of WP in claiming that they are ESP (or Goldfrog ESP) is irrelevant to WP, unless an RS reports on it. I could claim that I am ESP but that will also be ignored by WP (unless an RS reports on it).
The Guardian is a Tier 1 RS on WP. They are not fools and understand the issues of COI/WP:PRIMARY report (their article is not a COI issue). They have also spoken with other artists who have views on this (e.g. Charlie Waterhouse - who Quartz report as saying that he explicitly met the artist), so they are not reporting from a position of ignorance (which The Guardian do not do). Trying to degrade The Guardian's article in such a manner makes me suspicious that you have an agenda here.
I do feel that 150.143.118.26 / Goldfrog23 probably has a WP:COI issue regarding editing this article which I will tag; do you also have a COI here? For that reason, I have completely re-written the article and gone through all the source myself (and added more sources). Editors with COI are advised not to edit their WP articles directly.
Hastings Independent Press is not a Tier 1 RS on WP and is not on this list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (I am not even sure it is an RS suitable for WP). I have no idea what Hastings is saying that conflicts with what The Guardian is saying regarding ESP – can you explain this issue?
Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Britishfinance, the person was indeed removed from XR, and proof can be provided of this. Their attempts to out people are a violation of privacy and Wikipedia policy, and also endangers individual's personal security, but I suspect that's their motive at this point. They appear to want to conflate other artistic projects which no longer exist, but the fact is that the artist who created the symbol is known as ESP, and always has been since the extinction symbol was created. I just noticed they've also edited the main Extinction Rebellion Wikipedia page to remove the picture of the symbol, as well as to remove the words 'Extinction Symbol' and also remove the link to it which was on there. Which is unwarranted, because Extinction Rebellion have stated on many occasions that they're using the extinction symbol. These kind of edits give you an idea of where this person is coming from and their agenda against the symbol. I feel because of this that their edits should be removed from that page too, but perhaps someone else should do it, to avoid me ending up in another edit war with them.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S...the 'Hastings Independent Press' article mentioned above appears to have relied for it's sources on an earlier incorrect version of the extinction symbol wikipedia page, which in turn relied on a couple of very old blog posts based on supposition. The 'Hastings Independent Press' made no attempt to verify their sources with the artist or Extinction Rebellion. For someone to try to say this is credible information is pretty desperate stuff. I would respectfully suggest they take a deep breath and move on with their lives, because surely there must be better things to do that to harass people who are trying to build a movement to stop the extinction crisis.150.143.118.26 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@150.143.118.26: I am going to re-post your comment above to the Talk Page of the article (which is not locked); we can continue the discussion there. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Hastings newspaper recorded the creation of the symbol in 2011 by the artist then named Xylo, as is recorded elsewhere (try Googling "Xylo extinction symbol" if there is any doubt and let's put this nonsense to bed for once and for all).
As indeed it was on the Goldfrog ESP Flickr URL which I removed (it is in the URL again). No, I am not suggesting that is useful; yes, I am aware that would be WP:OR; I merely reference it for the sakes of background discussion here, noting that the Flickr gallery has been edited out since these matters arose.
I think we have a problem with circular sourcing given the artist is using a Guardian article to substaniate themselves, that quotes a blog (Ecohustler), that is quoting the artist publicizing themselves. Is Ecohustler even WP:RS? There would appear to be no independent verification and not everything in The Guardian meets WP:RS.
I could suggest for you to save time and energy by just asking them yourself, eg whether they are the artist and whether they were previously known as Xylo, but I think at this point it's blatantly obvious.
Therefore please replace the WP:COI tag and warn the artist off editing their own topic. Thank you. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, can you please email at the address at the bottom of the offical www.extinctionsymbol.info website? There are important legal matters relating to all of this that can't be discussed on an open forum like this. The person who keeps posting all of this stuff is endangering people's security, and allowing them to continue doing so either here or on the talk page isn't acceptable. Thanks.150.143.118.26 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me BF, why would 150.143.118.26 be asking you to email the address at the bottom of the offical www.extinctionsymbol.info website, as Goldfrog did to someone else earlier, if there was not a COI?
I'm going to say this and then leave it, and this does belongs on your talk page rather than the topic talk, the way you came into this matter and handled it, made it all much worse and consume far more resources, than it needed to be.
Let's get this all into proportion. Address the editor's COI, then move on. Everything else is just a distraction from that.
Start from first principles, or ab initio, and bear in mind the motivations behind the actions. --82.132.222.213 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @82.132.222.213: You are fooling no one now. As shown on the Talk Page, I have demonstrated you have a COI issue in trying to delete high-quality references to ESP (or ESP Goldfrog) as the likely creator of the Extinction Symbol, to replace with junk references that XYLO (i.e. likely you) as being the creator. Your fall back on being exposed was that ESP and XYLO are the same artist, and should both be attributed, which of course no RS asserts. The article has zero COI as I have completely re-written it (and fixed all references). Britishfinance (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you only knew how demented this was. XYLO will be laughing their head off at it but it has served their purpose.
(See below, and stick to subject matter you know about). --82.132.215.61 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care who XYLO is (and they have zero mention in any reliable RS). You, and your various 182.132* range of IP accounts, were exposed on the Extinction symbol Talk Page as trying to use a Wikipedia article to falsely promote XYLO as the artist who created the Extinction symbol. Everything else is irrelevant. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote in the first place, XYLO and Goldfrog ESP are the same person. It's not a fall back position.
You see, right there where you are digging your heels in over it, that's the tendency you need to examine.
Try checking the xylo.me website with archive.org, from about 2011. Or just ask them here. --82.132.215.61 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting hilarious now. So after deleting quality references to "ESP"/"ESP Goldfrog" on the article (like The Guardian as you did here, to replace with poor references to XYLO, you now, because the weight of RS proves that ESP/ESP Goldfrog created the Extinction Symbol (including a formal clarification by Gail Bradbrook of Extinction Rebellion here), want to create a fall-back story that ESP is XYLO. There is not a single WP-standard RS that states that ESP is XYLO (I can't even find an independent blog saying this). But instead, you direct me to XYLO's own website as proof ?!?! Seriously. It just getting surreal now. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BritishFinance: Thanks for all of the work you've done to entirely rewrite this article from a neutral point of view, and based on high quality reliable sources. I'm sorry that you've had to deal with all of the unpleasantness directed toward you from a certain individual. Their irrational and malicious campaign against XR and the symbol is quite worrying to be honest. Some people in XR have even started to have concerns for their personal safety due to the obsessive nature of this person.
Regarding the thing Jason Kottke raises, that's a known issue, but nobody in XR has the time or means to verify where the fundraising money would be going. Under the traditional model he advocates anybody at all could put products online and claim it's for fundraising. XR are trying to move away from the culture of mass production, toward a localised handcrafted community approach. People get their existing garments printed for free at XR events, and local groups are starting to get their own block printing kits now, so that's the true economy of scale, where once you've carved a woodblock or had it 3D printed or whatever then everything you make from that point onward is free.
Anyway, here's a couple more links of you need them. Cheers! Litro Creative Review 146.198.183.4 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 146.198.183.4. I do a reasonable amount of WP:AIV work (which is what brought me to this article), and "stabilizing" articles is part of what I do. Hopefully the article is in better shape now. Very interesting topic. Point noted re Kottke; he is a notable figure in WP so his comments are worth inserting, if other notable people or outlets discuss this, we will insert as well. Regarding your two links, I have the latter in as Creative Review is a good WP:RS (it is used 4 times in the article). The first "Litro" article is also interesting, but I would need to check up on whether it meets the WP:RS standard. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, PK Read is a notable journalist who has written for the main Huffington Post site, so I can use her Litro article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BF, if you paid closer attention you'd see that that particular Guardian reference is redundant as all it basically does is quote the Ecohustler blog and the artists own site.
Are you sure Ecohustler meets WP:RS?
--82.132.230.49 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another attempt (over 20 now), to fake attribution to XYLO, the east end lad called Dave (per Talk Page), trying to fool tourists that he created the Extinction Symbol.
As well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU, we have another term for tendentious editing on Wikipedia; it is called sealioning.

The Next Signpost

Britishfinance; I hope you saw the last Signpost "From the editors". In particular:

To mark the fifth anniversary of the terms of use change that banned undeclared paid editing, the next issue of The Signpost will focus on how paid editing affects our encyclopedia. We want to hear from editors, administrators, arbitrators, bureaucrats, WMF employees and board members. We want to hear from all sides of the issue, including those who oppose paid editing, those who support it, and paid editors – both declared and undeclared. And most of all we want to hear from ordinary Wikipedia editors.

I wasn't thinking exactly of you when I wrote this, but I think your story in a few short paragraphs could be very instructive. There may not be any room anymore for full op-eds (I'll see when I actually get the submissions), but I'm thinking of putting multiple "short stories" and quotes in a "From the community" article. Copy deadline for this would be June 25. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I would be delighted to return the help and do this for you. Just to understand, am I to write something regarding my experience of meeting paid editors, or being challenged as being a paid editor, or both? Am I to give a view on whether undeclared paid editing should continue to be banned? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be interesting for our readers to see how you were accused of being a paid editor by (apparent) paid editors and how they took it into the mainstream press. Any opinion you have about paid editing is welcome, but as I wrote, it's best that it is just a few short paragraphs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Understand now. I will get this to you well before your deadline. Where will I post my content? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can email me or just post it on my talk page or on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your handling of the edit-warring and subsequent cleaning-up of Extinction symbol. You deserve this! -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Rsrikanth05 – very kind of you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Extinction Symbol. SPA/COI accounts: a word or three of advice

I have been editing the Wikipedia since before you were a member and have had experience all the way up to WP:ARBCOM. Trust me when I write that I don't need lectures about policy, especially when editors are blatantly making stuff up. One of the reason why edit without logging in is to keep an eye on how established editors such as yourself and admins treat what are apparently newcomers, and it upsets me when members exploit their presumed ignorance of the way things work.

No, it's not WP:SOCK. It's perfectly legitimate. I could operate more than one account for doing so if I wanted.

additional detail from the 82.132* accounts

SPA/COI accounts

SPA/COI operate at three basic levels;

Controlling content

They post the content they want, and remove the content they WP:DONTLIKE, exercising WP:OWNERSHIP of their topics.

Creating distractions

They create distractions and obfuscations because a vague and inaccurate topic from an uninformed editor is better for them than a clear and accurate topic from an informed one that, again they DONTLIKE.

Engineering nastiness

They engineer plain and simple nastiness that puts off genuine editors as few want to get involved in those sort of disputes and risk their account's reputation. One of the benefits of which is their page or pages protected which, if they are lucky, will happen at "their" version.

In short, you basically delivered the last two, especially with the TD;LR copy and pastes from your own talk page that would have made it very difficult for anyone coming in to follow. Or want to.

Using the tools

You have access to various tools to allow you to see what is going on, eg WP:CHECK, filters such as here and others. Please use them.

First things first

When dealing with a SPA/COI account, deal with that first before you allow them to muddy the waters or, indeed, go on to muddy the waters yourself either wittingly or unwittingly.

Case in hand

  • On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad would say a case is where a SPA/COI account persistently :removes the same material,
removes content from talk pages, and even
removes contant from other people's talk pages?

I would have said 10. You may vary slightly. I'd say it was an immediate indefinite ban or at the very least if, you are feeling charitable, a topic ban and an invitation to the WP:TEAhouse to learn some policies and manners; which they will ignore as they are here for one purpose only.

I am sorry that I just have not got the time and energy to chew over the minutiae of policies and essays as I am supposed to be enjoying a holiday, and you are supposed to be enjoying your semi-retirement.

Perhaps you should be working harder at it, and ask yourself why you are attracted to such conflicts?

Hope that helps. --82.132.215.61 (talk)

  • I don't care who XYLO is (per your note above in "Extinction symbol"; they have zero mention in any reliable RS, so have little relevance to WP articles).
I don't care about user Goldfrog23 (and their IP account), and whether they are an SPA (they definitely have a COI issue); but I have re-written the article and all refs to address COI.
You, and your various 182.132* range of IP accounts, were exposed on the Extinction symbol Talk Page as trying to use a Wikipedia article to promote XYLO as the artist who created the Extinction symbol, and delete quality references to ESP/ESP Goldfrog as the attributed artist (which all the best RS support), and which user Goldfrog23 was likely trying to fix (and getting very distressed doing so).
You should read your own material above re WP:SOCK accounts as you have edited from at least six different IPs that I count (one of which was blocked and all of which were templated for editing issues), but you should also read about a bunch of other WP policies as well. Lets run through these IP accounts. Britishfinance (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your hard work rewriting the article and sorting all this mess, I will try to keep an eye on the article in the near future! -- Luk talk 11:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Luk: Thanks for that! I am not an environmentalist by any means (although I am increasingly concerned about it), but I have a feeling that this symbol is going to become a lot more notable over time and hence my desire to fix the article as best I could. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@82.132.215.61: After reviewing the talk page and the current condition of the article, I feel that Britishfinance's rewriting clears the style and neutrality issues I noticed when encountering the article last Sunday. No need to invoke any kind of seniority on Wikipedia editing (or ArbCom), please bring reliable sources on the talk page if you feel the article is not balanced. -- Luk talk 13:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
additional detail from the 82.132* accounts (pushing XYLO agenda
Hi, just dropped by to add a quick note (probably from yet another IP address. I don't know, I have not checked).
Luk, why on earth bother wasting your time building up a bogus case? These are all just public access, dynamic IP addresses that the tools available to use would quickly identify as different users. I was not asserting authority, just heading off BF patronising me.
BF, I read over that essay linked to from your user page. Although far broader in scope than what I wrote, I can find very little that I cannot agree with nor which contradicts what I wrote.
Where you and it gets it wrong, however, is perceiving the Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia whereas it is really just a computer war game where factoids and policies are the weapons, where the content is the battlefield, and into which real world COI seap in to battle over how reality is to be seen and which is one not by what is right, but by whoever is willing and able to invest the time and energy to defend their territories. And pretty much as futile as fighting over a drawing in the sand.
Surely by now you are conscious of this? Just take a look at pretty much any religious, political or nationalistic topic.
You're still digging your heels in and distorting reality over this. I never tried to use a Wikipedia article to "promote XYLO as the artist" who created the Extinction symbol, all I did was fill in the history that ESP "was originally known or promoted themselves as XYLO" (indeed, the symbol symbolized X-Y-L-O). There is a distinct difference between the two.
From a policy point of view, I refer back to WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:IGNORE (and why the first is not a written policy, "It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy").
Art becomes notable because of where and how it is displayed. Galleries and shows are like journals for sciences papers. Other mediums forms such as documentaries are also RS.
What you have here are numerous earlier references to the creator as XYLO. Somehow that has to be squared by the topic (and not by some ridiculous fantasy).
For example, here, it is documented as or with the notable artist Carrie Reichardt who has worked as or with XYLO on extinction symbols from a date long before the symbol became notable to the degree it is now.

Next to this piece was a collaboration in progress by Xylo (originally covered here) and Carrie Reichardt. Carrie Reichardt created all of the tiles with political and environmental messages on them. Her focus was on bees. I think this will look amazing once it's finished.

Note how XYLO also uses the Goldenfrog motif.
Now, your interpretation of the RS policy is incorrect. There is no such thing as "tier 1" references, and policy specifically states that not all content taken from such sources would meet WP:RS as, eg, it differentiates from proper reportage and lightweight opinion pieces.
As I have correctly highlighted, there is a problem relying on the sources you have, as they are part of an WP:COI echo chamber.
*A COI editor quoting a newspaper article,
*that quotes a blog,
*that is quoting the very same COI editor,
*working up their own PR.
Now know, that is a serious problem. You can kneejerk into denial and attempt to building up a defence based on manipulating policy to suit your position (see my comment re WP:BATTLEGROUND up above), but ultimately it has to be taken into consideration. I appreciate that I am in a privileged positon of actually knowning who they are, but I am not exploit that here.
I just care a little more about accuracy.
If the Wikipedia is going to end up a slave and tool to PR campaigns, which it is in certain areas, then it is doomed. --82.132.245.94 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on Talk Page of the article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of talk page comments

Don't revert again. The editor has not retired, and they are currently misusing the retirement tag. You mean well, bless your heart, but please read up before making such bold reversions. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: I think we both mean well, but this whole "thing" has gone crazy now (the BN should be on admin-suicide watch). This is going to take weeks to solve, and ultimately the legal view (which I am guessing will be the BoT/WMF view), is going to prevail, regardless of the thousands of lines of text written. In the meantime, really good admins like Rob (who I have found really really good in my time), are heading for the exits because ... well, you know why. More civility amongst editors will not hurt the situation, given the central issue is civility? You have already made your point in his Talk Page (and I understand it), hammering it in again is not helpful to anybody – yourself included? I will leave it to you to decide. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took you two days to decide if my comment - and only my comment, I might add - was "grave dancing", even though the editor in question is still editing and misusing the retirement tag? I have to question your agenda? You are still yet to acknowledge these two things that I mentioned to you above. With regards to my "gravedancing", I think it disgusting that someone can openly call another person "an abuser", without evidence, and be seen to get away with it. If that were you or I, or anyone else, we would expect to be blocked. Oh, and FWIW, my opinion is that Rob has been a terrible admin and is someone who should never have had the tools in the first place. He has acted with his own, biased agenda at ArbCom, conducted himself elsewhere in a biased manner in disputes, certainly around infoboxes, and then wonders why there is not much respect for him when he steps down as a committee member. Of late, I think we have seen the very best in admins like Floquenbeam, Bishonen, and WJBScribe, and the very worst in BURob13. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: So we disagree on Rob, big deal. He was voted in by the community as an admin and onto ArbCom, so he can't be all bad? I am not fully familiar with the other names you advocate, but they seem fine to me. I came back a day later having left a "sorry to see you go" post on Rob's TP, to see a subsequent "hard" comment repeating other "hard" comments already made to Rob earlier. It made me sad to see that, and done during a "crisis" regarding civility? Ultimately, there is no long-term future for WP if it makes enemies of ordinary editors? It can only diminish our (e.g. all of us) enjoyment of WP and reason for volunteering so much unpaid time to the project. As I said earlier, this situation will get resolved and it will likely be driven by legal considerations. I have seen enough BoTs to know that no trustee (without exception), is going to over-rule legal concerns over things like civility. It is right people feel strongly about this – the issues are serious, and material questions need to be answered; however, hammering things is not helping anybody's case. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
!votes at a silly RfA, a flawed process in itself, is not an indication that the person nominated is a pillar of the community. Quite often, people do little research before quick supporting in order to earn brownie points in the future. Do you think it's acceptable to label someone as "an abuser" without diffs, evidence, or links? What about the editing behind a retirement tag? CassiantoTalk 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: RfA is certainly not a perfect process, however, you see my point – on the most objective process we have, Rob has enjoyed community support? I don't think Rob was implying "child abuse", but it is not unreasonable given that FRAM themselves have disclosed the WMF have sanctioned them over a series of events? He could have chosen better words, however, that is why I left the earlier comments alone. My point is the hammering, and its relation to civility. You interpret Rob's editing post-retirement one way, I interpret it as Rob trying to be helpful (as I always found him to be, even when other admins gave up). Britishfinance (talk)

Reliable Sources Extinction Symbol

I've done a partial breakdown of the new sources on Extinction symbol. Few meet the standards for WP:RS. You're not just contradicting yourself as to the acceptability of blog sources but WP:CHERRYPICKING.

Ditto, you yourself also quoted WP:TALKO so best adhere to it.

Thanks, --82.132.230.49 (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another attempt to fake attribution to XYLO, the east end lad called Dave (per Talk Page), trying to fool tourists that he created the Extinction Symbol.
As well as WP:ICANTHEARYOU, we have another term for tendentious editing on Wikipedia; it is called sealioning. Britishfinance (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Stuart isn't an "East End Lad", nor is he claiming to be the creator of the Extinction symbol. He is a professional and probably the leading expert in London Street Art scene.
Mores to the point, he knows and has corresponded with XYLO/ESP for many years.
Dave's position is, to quote him directly, he has "no desire to piss on Xylo's chips" if they want to re-market if they want to remarket themselves as ESP.
That's why I say, in order to be sure of your position, ask either of them directly in order to gain some kind of perspective on this issue.
You are going way beyond the point of reasonable in this issue and contravening numerous policies to do so. Your screaming and hectoring and repeating of ungrounded and, quite frankly, ridiculous accusation won't make some true; nor make something that is true any less true. I think you need to get a grip and regain your neutrality.
Thank you. --82.132.221.72 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least we can confirm your WP:COI here.
Your quote: Your screaming and hectoring and repeating of ungrounded, and quote frankly ridiculous accusation.
The sealioning tactic is not working for you. Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what COI is that precisely?
I asked you to stop copy and pasting discussion between us on to the talk page in order to confuse things even further.
I asked you to stop re-writing what I wrote in a prejudicial manner, re WP:TALKO. I am asking you again. Anything beyond this point will be clear evidence of bad faith and deliberate provocation.
"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."
Thank you.--82.132.216.240 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Luk: @82.132.216.240: I am going to have to ask you not to come to my talk page anymore. I have gone to great lengths to answer your questions (per above), and have pasted in your questions (plus my answers) to the article Talk Page to help other editors understand you (which is permitted). COI concerns are outlined on the Talk Page (more WP:ICANTHEARYOU); you should not edit the article directly. You are not acting in good faith, your actions feel like harassment and intimidation. Britishfinance (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good

We'll be editing the submission over the next week, but it looks good. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assisting with the issue (pls reply to Bri if necessary). You can find your draft now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view - Bri.public (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri and thanks for that - will keep an eye on it and try to handle any questions/comments raised. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this similar to the Facebook advert you mentioned in the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bri. This is the source Irish Tax Agency. According to one Irish newspaper, here, he spent Euro 20,000 on his campaign? Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This Bloomberg article has more discussion about his campaign (and of course, IDA Ireland's unfair accusation of my "44,000 edits to Irish tax articles" ??). Britishfinance (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to verify the link in this, but couldn't "and tried to hire additional meatpuppets from Irish Wikipedians to "build a case" against me (see here);they failed." "Hire" means cash in this case. Can you show me the sentence with the offer? Otherwise looks good Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones:. The link was lost when they archived that post on the WikiProject Ireland page. I have fixed the link now, and changed the word to "recruit" from "hire". The link is to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 18#Statement, where I provide the two diffs of their attempt of meatpuppetry with two specific editors, and obviously, their whole post at WikiProject is an attempt to recruit other Irish wikipedian's to their agenda; which none did. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones On a separate matter, will you be able to update the Signpost article on the "constitutional crisis" for the Buzzfeed News article [9]. I think it is a very decent article which wider Wikipedians, who have not been following the Fram affair, will be interested in? I can see that it sparked off another separate issue when Katherine Maher made some unhelpful tweets about the story? Britishfinance (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Britishfinance. If you're going to make FLC nominations in the future, there should definitely be separate nominations for each article. Even if they have elements in common, they will all have certain unique items, and reviewers may discover issues in later FLCs that they missed in previous noms. Before you try nominations, I see a couple of issues that would likely sink a potential nom if left unfixed. First, and most importantly, the tables themselves don't have any apparent citations in the first article you listed, at least. It looks like the citation is meant to be provided in the short text preceding the table, but I think we'd want something more evidently a table reference. As you're probably going to want to avoid doing 2,000 individual cites (in one of the lists I looked at), I'd recommend taking the hill database (or whatever is backing a given column) and adding cites to it in the table headings. That will support the content sufficiently to meet FL standards in that regard.

Second, you're going to want to improve the lead sections of these lists. The ones I looked at start with "This is a list of", which is thought of as outdated among FLC reviewers. We wouldn't start a non-list page with "This is an article about", after all. Try to make the introductions more interesting to the readers, like the Birketts list (whose opening sentence looks solid to me). The Marilyns in the British Isles list had a short one-paragraph lead, which you're going to want to expand to three or four paragraphs, a length matching some of your other lists. Also, a couple of the lists have numerous red links. The featured list criteria call for "a minimal proportion" of red links, so that's something a reviewer might question you about. There may be other issues with the lists, as I didn't do any comprehensive reviews, but this feedback should give you an idea of what the reviewers will be looking for. Overall, there's some work needed, but they look like interesting topics and Main Page readers would probably like them if one or more of the lists were to run someday. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giants2008. Many thanks for your help. I understand re the sourcing, I have given a full paragraph on the sourcing (with footnote) in each of the articles, however, I will also convert into an in-line citation attached to the table heading. The table is a download from the DoBIH database, but usefully, the DoBIH also provide an online searchable interface so any entry can be checked separately (e.g. I should not need to reference each individual line). Re the second part about the lede, I can also fix that - do you have examples of FLs that might look similar to the type of lists I am doing that might serve as a guide/template? I will try and pick one list as a test-case (with your fixes above), however, if you have any guidance on a particular one that you would use, I would appreciate your view on that. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart

You can ask for whitelisting of that Breitbart article for the Fram Summary ( Defer to Whitelist). It is one of the rare exceptions of whitelisting somethin for linking outside of mainspace (though not unprecedented). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beetstra and thanks for that. Never knew that existed, but will give it a try! Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, I was to lazy to do it myself [10]. You may or may not find this discussion a little interesting.[11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I keep finding new areas on WP that I never knew existed???? I'll fill that ref in. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, I did that since you appeased the gods, I'm not that lazy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, have you come across Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? Or even the Wikipedia:Reference desk? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång facepalming myself there! Have never seen those two other sets of pages? I have been on WP for over year and never saw the reference desk - how do others find this? I am amazed that editors have the time and bandwidth to answer these questions? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have been here since 2009, you pick up stuff. I think you stumble over "it" or someone tells you, but reference desk is actually linked on the mainpage, under "Other areas of Wikipedia". Wikipedia:Dashboard may have something of interest. Oh, and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Britishfinance,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm sorry Britishfinance, but I have to step away from this site for a while, for my own sake. Anyone, including you, are welcome to update the summary. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Starship.paint. Very sorry to hear that but I can understand. You are a great editor (your work is really very good), and unfortunately got caught in a rule that many of us (myself included) don't fully appreciate at times. I have a feeling we will see you back again some day. All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flouting the rule was indeed my mistake. But had the admin been Dennis Brown [12], things would have turned out differently. That said, I know that Tony was acting in the interests of the project, and that his actions were within the range of acceptable ones. starship.paint (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly went to defcon 1 quickly; tensions are very high on WP?!? Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think tensions was the cause. I'd just like to leave a quote. If the reason the WMF stepped in was because they thought that we couldn’t handle cases like this, the way to prove them right is to not take any action when someone targets their staff members. Yes, this whole situation is a complete mess, but blocking people for inappropriate actions in it and letting the appeals process play out shows that we do have community self-governances and that it should be taken seriously. starship.paint (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove "semi-retired" at top of your page

The tag relates to your wp status, not professional status. Ret Tax Guy (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WMF noticeboard

I agree with what you wrote here (though could you consider correcting your typo from 'formerly' to 'formally'?). There is Wikipedia:Community bulletin board but that is not what I think you are looking for. There are pages over at the WMF wikis where formal announcements can be made, but there does need to be somewhere here as well. It is amazing in some ways that no such centralised contact area exists. It drives home how anarchic the site can be. The best place I found for the WMF was over on meta at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. I am going to suggest to Doc James that a copy of the statement be formally posted there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Britishfinance&oldid=904793577"