User talk:Naypta

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1986 enlargement of the European Communities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estado Novo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-30

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

Recent changes

• A temporary fix helped wikis make their main pages more mobile friendly. This was in 2012. It has not been recommended since 2017. The mobile main page special casing stopped working 14 July. 60 wikis now have main pages that don't work well on mobile. You can see which ones, how to fix it and how to get help in Phabricator. This is the same problem that was reported in Tech News 2020/24 and 2020/26.

Problems

• There is a problem with the interlanguage links. The interlanguage links are the links that help you find a specific page in a different language. The sorting is broken. The developers are working on a solution. [1]
• Some users keep getting the notifications for the same event. Some of these are old events. [2]
• Some users have trouble logging in. This is probably a browser cookie problem. The developers are working on understanding the problem. If you have trouble logging in you can see the details on Phabricator. [3]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 July. It will be on all wikis from 23 July (calendar).

Future changes

• There is a Printable version link. This will disappear. That is because web browsers today can create a printable version or show how it will look in print anyway. [4]

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

19:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Quid pro quo?

Hi! I’ve seen your nomination at WP:FAC. I must say that while I often find myself lacking spare time nowadays and I can’t say I know the exact details, the topic of your article is adjacent to a personal interest of mine, so I’d be happy to review your article if you could review mine as quid pro quo. My article is hassium, and while it may feel like it’s rather technical, I’ve tried my best to make it readable for a general reader, so even if you feel like you don’t have enough knowledge on the topic at hand, a review would still be appreciated.—R8R (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks for dropping a message. I'll try and take a look through the article when I get some time, and leave some comments at the review. You're more than welcome to review my FAC if you like, but please don't feel obligated to do so, whether or not I review yours; I'd rather keep my wiki-work completely voluntary, as much as I possibly can. Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've looked into your comments and I hope I'll be able to respond today, or if not, then during the weekend.

As I said, your article is about something that's interesting for me too, so don't worry about me feeling obligated to return the favor (I normally would feel this way, and I think it's only fair to me to do it and for you to expect that, too, but the topic is interesting for me indeed). Probably, too, during this weekend.--R8R (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've been able to respond to your comments, hope you'll be able to take a look soon.

But what I really wanted to write is that I should be able to start my review tomorrow. Also, I want to tell you that I once reviewed an FAC nomination of an article about something related to the Chinese Communist Party. While I ended up supporting the nomination, it did not pass because nobody else turned up at the FAC page. So my friendly advice to you as a fellow editor would be that if nobody else turns up in a week or so, it might be wise to look for more reviewers yourself, like why I wrote to you in the first place. Maybe the WikiProjects covering Spain, Portugal, and the European Union could help, too. I'd hate to see that happen before my eyes once again because I know how much work goes into writing a bronze star-worthy article.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

American Academy of Actuaries

Hi,

I believe that your wholesale rejection of the edits based on one link is overkill, as I compiled information about three organizations and added updated new content. I am happy to rewrite the Introduction to meet with the guidelines (and thanks for pointing those out), but the other edits and updates had nothing to do with that About Us page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'landRes (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@B'landRes: Hi there. The Introduction, Mission, History and Code of Professional Conduct sections at least were copyright violations in their entirety, as confirmed to various URLs, not just the About Us page. The template for requesting the revision deletion of material that infringes copyright only allows me to include three URLs per template, so I've only been able to include the three that most of the content came from. You'll note I've also subsequently requested the removal of a lot of material that you didn't add, as well - it looks like someone else had previously added a lot of infringing content, too.

You are very welcome to add content that is well-sourced and that you've written yourself, or that is licensed appropriately, but please do not readd content that had been copied and pasted - even to work on it. Under normal circumstances, all revisions in the history of an article on Wikipedia are visible to the public, so copyright infringement can easily become a big issue unless it's spotted and removed, as is explained in the message I popped on your talk page.

All the best! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jackson Wang’s Wiki Page

Hi, I noticed your recent edit on there, and I was wondering if you could change the info in his “personal life.” It mentions this Hong Kong Instagram post incident which has nothing to do with his PERSONAL life. The editor was RealFakeKim and their entire profile is full of editing Hong Kong protests, so it’s an anti in disguise editing Jackson’s page to spread an agenda. I can not change his wiki by myself, so I’m respectfully asking❤️ Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wanggaeparkgae: Hi there, I'm afraid I don't follow what you're looking for. I've not recently edited Jackson Wang to the best of my knowledge; neither does that page mention Instagram in any way. If you have a specific request for a change to a page that you are unable to edit, you should request that the edit be made. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I only found your account because it had you on the bottom of his “Talk” page and said you edited it 11 days ago. I don’t know much about wiki. The mention of the incident I meant is in his “Personal Life” section Paragraph 2 and unrelated to his personal life and made by someone with a clear agenda. It says Weibo, not Instagram (my bad about that). It’s about him posting midst the Hong Kong protests. I just want that paragraph gone because it has nothing to do with his personal life and is a way to incite hatred against him. I’m new to the wiki thing, so I didn’t know how to make the request. I just saw that you edited it and looked at your profile and thought you could change it, but I will attempt the way you directed too. Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wanggaeparkgae: Ah, I follow - I responded to an edit request previously on that talk page, yes. It's worth noting, though, that information isn't generally removed from Wikipedia just because people don't like it; the statement about a Weibo post there is sourced appropriately to an Associated Press article talking about it, so it is very unlikely to be removed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s not that I “just don’t like it.” It’s that it’s not about his personal life AND is a controversial topic aka more reason it shouldn’t even be in his personal life because it has nothing to do with it. It is factually incorrect to be under that labeling. Just because it is sourced appropriately does not mean it’s appropriate to be on his page and especially under that label.

Your page talks a lot about being someone’s friend and doing the right thing and “protecting the wiki from vandalism”, “keeping this place a reliable source of knowledge for all,” and contributions follow policy” but you don’t see a problem with a person whose only contributions have been related to the Hong Kong protests adding that to a celebrity‘s PERSONAL LIFE label as a clear way to incite anger and misinformation because it does not even accurately explain everything.

You have the power to remove it and are choosing not to. It WILL get changed, and I will make it get changed. You not doing so and compiling with it is just a hindrance and frankly annoying considering how “positive” and “friendly” your page is. Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wanggaeparkgae: First things first, please don't shout. There's no need whatsoever for that.

Someone's publicly-expressed political opinions and sentiments are perfectly valid to be included in a "personal life" section on a Wikipedia page. You are welcome to make a post on the article's talk page to see what other editors think, if you like, but I can't see any valid reason for removing that content.

You are also mistaking the user who wrote the latest revision of the page for the user who added that sentence. That content was not, in fact, added by RealFakeKim, but rather by another, unrelated editor; it was added many months ago.

If you would like to add additional context, please feel free to open an edit request to do so, making sure that your additions are supported by reliable sources, and are relevant to the context in which they are in. However, saying It WILL get changed isn't how Wikipedia works; decisions are made by consensus, not by any single individual. No one person can guarantee something is or isn't going to remain on Wikipedia. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s not about his personal life, and he is never political. I see this convo is pointless as you magically don’t see the stance I’m coming from but about your last point: I don’t care. It will get changed, and I will be the first to point it out to you when it has cause I won’t stop❤️ Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31

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

Recent changes

• The Starter kit is now available for wiki communities. This page lists technical resources, tools, and recommendations. These are essential to operate a wiki project. This is mostly useful for smaller wikis where the community has limited experience with this. [5]
• The first features of the Desktop Improvements project are available for logged-in users on all wikis. In order to use them, uncheck Use Legacy Vector in your local or global preferences in section Skin preferences. More improvements are planned. Feedback is welcome.
• On multiple wikis, a UTCLiveClock gadget is available. For wikis that import the gadget directly from mediawiki.org, end users can now choose a different timezone to show instead of UTC.

Problems

• The deployment train for MediaWiki has been blocked this week. [6][7]
• Translation Notification Bot was sending the same message multiple times to every translator. This has been fixed. [8]
• Some users were receiving the same notification multiple times. This has been fixed. [9]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from July 29. It will be on all wikis from JUly 30 (calendar).

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

13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

question at RfA talk

Didn't want to muddy that discussion any further. It looks bad if the candidate doesn't answer fairly quickly for at least the first 18 or so hours of the RfA (because they're expected to have started it at a time that was convenient for themselves), but the bigger problem is that if someone asks a question with a diff (which ought to be most questions), everyone is going to go look at that diff, and some people won't wait for the answer before they go ahead and oppose on the basis of the diff, and it only takes a few opposes before those who come into RfAs looking for the chance to oppose feel comfortable doing it because there are other opposes. So when a candidate gets a question with a diff that doesn't look great and needs an explanation, it can feel very much like every minute counts. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I agree with you that that's definitely a problem. I wonder if perhaps one solution to that might actually be to open RfAs to questions for a period of time before permitting votes on them, to allow those things to be straightened out in advance. On the one hand, it would prolong the process (which I know will get groans all around); on the other, it does go some way as to prevent that sort of problem.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the idea that most questions should have an accompanying diff and be about a specific piece of content is an opinion, not gospel - it's a perfectly valid opinion, don't get me wrong, and I absolutely get why you feel that way! I think there's a valid case to be made, though, that questions about someone's general approach can still be valid, especially where there's an expressed intent to mop in areas where one hasn't done wikiwork before (either through simple lack of experience doing so, or through lack of ability so to do - e.g. blocking users, handling AN/I if the user doesn't have much experience there, processing AIV reports, dealing with revdel). Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, yes, definitely it's opinion. Plenty of people would disagree. But I take exception with your example -- an expressed intent to mop in areas you haven't done significant work is going to generate widespread opposes, most without asking a question or waiting for someone else to. It would be an incredibly silly thing for any candidate to do. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And for heaven's sake, you started the comment with As I mentioned above, it's plausible that other people also share the view that a candidate with no opposition should probably face more scrutiny than one that has received opposes. You connected that comment to your earlier question and your rationale. No, that's not really plausible that someone with 17000 edits who works mostly at AIV, UAA, and CSD 'hasn't been involved in anything controversial', nor is it plausible that they're 'just good at hiding it.' Look, for your own reasons, you decided to ask a question. I don't know why, but if you really did it because 'the candidate looks too good to be true therefore they need even more scrutiny' then IMO that's a WORSE reason than what WereSpielChequers was guessing. Often people can get away with this kind of thing, but because there were already so many questions, including multiple silly ones, you got criticized for it. You are just digging yourself a deeper hole by trying to keep trying to convince people that it was a reasonable question asked for a plausible reason. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I fear that criticism of my question is troubling you far more than it is me I don't think this is going anywhere fast, and I do think it's a bit strange to seemingly question whether I'm telling the truth about what my thought process was, then separately question whether I'm talking about it too much - but to briefly address your other points: I specifically said in my comment I was not making reference to Red Phoenix's RfA, who it is by this stage abundantly clear will pass the RfA process save for some earth-shattering event happening in the next couple of days, but rather in general, because the discussion at WT:RFA isn't at the talk page for the specific RfA; it's a discussion location for RfA as a concept, as both of us know perfectly well.

As to an expressed intent to mop in areas you haven't done significant work is going to generate widespread opposes; well, as I highlighted, in plenty of cases, it's difficult to impossible to provide proof of dealing with things like revdel beyond taking the word of the admins who one's contacted previously to ask them to undertake the revdel itself. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)