User talk:Airplaneman
(chat · email me · 747 · subpages · numbers · blocks · protections · deletions · moves · rights · all logs)
Total articles: 6,907,986 Good articles: 40,528 Featured articles: 6,615
Hi!
Leave me a message!
This page was last edited by Dhaddonpearson (talk | contribs) 3 years ago.
6 November 2024 |
|
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
Thanks
Philippine Barnstar | |
For your patient and thorough efforts taken during the review of the article Pensionado Act I hereby award you this barnstar. May its stars shine brightly for all who see it. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
- @RightCowLeftCoast: Thank you, I really appreciate it! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 20:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Re: Request for protection of Waffle House Index
Hi, thanks for the response. I already understand how to undo edits as I already have experience with editing wikis, although I'm rusty from not doing so for some number of years. I just wanted to provide a stable revision in case of further vandalism and to not get into an undo war beyond that. Thanks again, have a great day. :) ShadowMoltres (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ShadowMoltres: Thanks for providing a link to the stable version. Definitely made things easier to investigate! Happy editing, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Help
Dear sir, I create an article in my draftspace about a female leader and when it get completed I tried to move it to article page but there someone previously uses her name and redirects her name to new name (his husband's name).
Here is my draft, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heena_Shahab
Her husband (which redirected from Heena Shahab) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Shahabuddin
They both are diffrent person. (Husband and wife)
Help me sir. Sturdyankit (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Sturdyankit: It looks like you've made some progress with this request on Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Help_me. I'll try and keep an eye on it. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 05:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi
LOL, we protected at exactly the same time! Was that a violation of Social distancing? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: hmmmmmmmmmm if so, it was an unwitting one! When I was applying protection using TW, I was confused when a popup window appeared telling me that there was already a protection template on the page. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently I beat you by somewhere between 1 and 59 seconds. 0;-D That kind of edit-conflict is why I eventually set up my habit that before I start patrolling RfPP, I look at the page history to see if any other admin is active there. If they are, I go away and do something else. But hey, thanks for restoring my edit, and it was nice to "run into" you (at no risk to social distancing)! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: Checking the page history is a good idea--I haven't been doing that consistently. I'll make that a habit now. And thanks for pointing me towards your essay on page protection! I'd also consider myself a "protector". I actually gave a lightning talk at WikiConference North America last year with a few of my thoughts on RFPP, but I haven't put them in essay form. It was nice to run into you as well! Stay safe out there, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently I beat you by somewhere between 1 and 59 seconds. 0;-D That kind of edit-conflict is why I eventually set up my habit that before I start patrolling RfPP, I look at the page history to see if any other admin is active there. If they are, I go away and do something else. But hey, thanks for restoring my edit, and it was nice to "run into" you (at no risk to social distancing)! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Request to view deleted page "Living a Lie"
Hi there,
Please could you let me view the contents of a deleted page? It was called "Living a Lie", about an American television series, I created it back in 2006 under a different username and it was deleted at my own request.
Thanks if you can help, I would really appreciate it.
90s Fella (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @90s Fella: So as I understand it, you created it under the username TrampikeyII and requested it be deleted because it was a hoax. I'm sorry, but this isn't a reasonable undeletion request, so I won't honor it. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood. Best, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 01:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying. I don't want it undeleted, I was just hoping you could e-mail me a copy of its contents. Please could you help? 90s Fella (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Article Request
write an article about Indian Blogger Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilpedian (talk • contribs) 09:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Am I doing something wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow
The above user deleted my edits in 6 pages. He stated that it was NOT NEWS OR NO MEDICAL ADVICE. I have had made sure there were legit references to my contributions. Please guide me.
Can you see his edits? If not then here's one of the pages that was changed (View Edit History)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezafibrate — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNavedKhan (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @TheNavedKhan: Sorry for the delayed response; it appears that Abecedare has addressed your question. The root of the issue whether or not a source is considered reliable. Please feel free to let us know if you have further questions! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Airplaneman ✈
Thank you for the response.
This is for newbie guidance:
I would like to know what are the steps I should take to become an administrator on Wikipedia? What are the dos and don'ts? How was your experience, and how long did it take you? Can admins get banned as well? How do I report an admin who is biased or unjust? When is deletion not applicable? Like I saw an edit where the admin said, "Deletion G7, not applicable to schools" For WP:NOTABILITY, what are the minimum requirements? Is it necessary for the subject (person) to have an award?
I have a lot more to ask and learn from you! :)
I hope you will entertain my request and help me whenever you're not flying ✈✈✈
TheNavedKhan (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @TheNavedKhan: My advice for anyone who is just getting started is to read, read, read. So I think the way I can help you most is to point you towards pages that you can read. I'll try to blue link important things in this reply. When I first got started on Wikipedia, it was because I wanted to add to and improve upon topics I was interested in. Nowadays, my motivations for contributing lean more towards helping others contribute more easily, whether that be protecting pages, establishing consensus, or organizing editing events. To successfully do all of this—much like working in any particular field—I have to keep in touch with the literature. That is, I have to stay up-to-date on policies, guidelines, and discussions on how to best perform the tasks I want to perform. If I want to close an AfD discussion, for example, I will first make sure I have reviewed the guide to deletion and related processes. This applies to most anything you'll encounter on Wikipedia. For your particular question on deletion, you'll want to read up on WP:G7. Try and see how that applies to the particular case at hand. If you still don't understand, or if you disagree, you can ask the admin who deleted the article about how they came to their decision.
- I've also learned a lot from watching what others do in similar situations. For example, I spend a lot of time on WP:RFPP, and if I'm unsure about what to do for a particular request, I might ask someone else for their opinion, or look at what others have done in similar situations in the past. This means looking at page logs, article histories, and talk pages, all to see what's been done and if any discussion has occurred around the topic.
- Regarding your question on how to become an administrator: start your reading here. Ask yourself why you want to become an administrator. What is it that you want to do? Or do you want to become an administrator because they're "important"? If you believe an admin is biased or unjust, try to talk to them about that. If that's not going anywhere, there's always noticeboards such as WP:AN or WP:ANI.
- As for my particular experience in becoming an administrator, I'd say it was fairly organic. I did not begin editing in earnest in order to become an administrator. I contributed to Wikipedia because I enjoyed adding content and being a part of the project. In time (I'd say around one and a half years of active editing), I gained skills that made it so I could contribute in many different ways. For example, I fought vandalism, helped run a wikiproject for some time, and I learned how to review good articles. My writing (and typing speed!) improved substantially, thanks to my experience writing articles and the help of other editors. Some fellow editors thought that I could help out even more with administrator tools. I ran for adminship twice, failing the first time, but taking the criticism to heart and making adjustments. As for the do's and don'ts, read what I've linked, and just edit what you enjoy. I don't recommend editing in order to become an admin, unless that's what brings you joy, I guess. Explore different areas of the site, watch what others do, and try new things. You'll be a well-rounded editor before you know it. And part of being a well-rounded editor is always learning.
- Regarding the notability guidelines, the point is that the "minimum requirements" are somewhat up to interpretation. I suppose baseline criteria such as significant, reliable coverage and a credible claim to notability could be said to be minimum requirements. Honestly, though, you yourself linked the notability guidelines to me in the question above. Reading through them and their related pages should help your understanding. Also take a look at what's happening at WP:AFD.
- My response here is in no way comprehensive, and you have asked a lot of broad questions that cannot be answered in a succinct manner. I'd say the main takeaway is that you should keep exploring, observe what others do (in articles, on talk pages, on noticeboards, etc.) and keep reading. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the generous answer | Can you please review this draft for me, and approve it if everything is okay
Hello Airplaneman ✈
I am creating a new page,SocialX could you please review it? Because I don't want to get it deleted. It's a new marketing agency which will soon be famous. I have listed it under Company Stub because I don't have a lot of references to make a full article. Although I believe that soon enough I can add more content with proper references. Please let me know what's wrong, and how can I improve, and move it to article from draft without deletion.
Thank you once again!
TheNavedKhan (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I think you may have answered your own question here. A subject "which will soon be famous" is not a claim to notability. Take a look at the box at the top of your draft, especially the "how to improve your article" tab. The draft currently has two sources, both of which are press releases. Under the "how to improve your article" tab, the last bullet point says "make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources". You need to add those kinds of sources to the article. These sources should back up the claim to notability of the subject (which, again, I'm not seeing). Honestly, even though I'd consider myself an inclusionist, I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough for its own article yet. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! So, I will need newspaper or government sources as strong references, and not press release. I understand it's not notable yet, I will wait for better content like some awards, and update the draft accordingly. Is everything else okay?
Do press release don't count in-general? Or it's okay to attached a press release if other strong sources are available?
Regards ✈, TheNavedKhan (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, you'll need reliable sources and to comply with WP:V. Press releases are considered self-published and shouldn't be used as the main sources for the article. It's not necessarily bad to use press releases to support non-controversial facts, but they should be used with caution. The writing on the draft as it is currently isn't problematic, but there isn't much there right now. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt 2020 item 88
Please see item 88 on this year's list for the reasoning behind this esoteric post. This talk page post is in support of the team SCRAPPY DOO FOUND DEAD IN MIAMI. May their wishes be granted, items be glorious, and points be bountiful… blah blah blah and whatever other magic a Wikipedia admin is supposed to be able to spin with their mop-shaped wand. Honestly posting on my talk page is a bit of strange request. I would have preferred to show my support on my user page. But here we are, scav judges. Am I only important enough to be worth 9 points? Come on! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay so did Snell–Hitchcock reach out to you directly or...? Because the judge says the wondrous Burton-Judson team (i.e. me in this case) was the only one that actually just awkwardly cold called on admins' talk pages asking for support (shoutout to Ruslik0 for obliging). Admittedly was annoyed on Friday when, having hoped to avoid needing to awkwardly explain Scav to complete strangers, I found a UChicago alum + admin ... only to see I had been beaten to it :) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @WhinyTheYounger: Hey! Love the username :). I actually lived in Snitchcock and have scavved/page captained for them in the past. My old roommate reached out to me. I'm surprised you were able to find me, to be honest! And yea, reaching out re: scav is awkward for sure. I refused to help reach out to bureaucrats or Jimbo for additional points on the item, and I did so for two reasons: 1) I hate bothering people unnecessarily, and this seemed (to me) like a waste of time for people whose time and attention is already stretched, and 2) I'm a bit disillusioned by this whole scav thing. Kudos to you for being brave enough to cold call, and to Ruslik0 for helping out!
- I took a look at your user page—I actually grew up in the DC region (though I never attended any Wikimedia DC events until fairly recently). I think you're doing important work re: PRC and related articles. If you ever need another eye on articles you're working on, feel free to reach out. I've been trying to do more content work again. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I figured there had to be a connection, roommate makes sense :) I was a captain for BJ until I graduated recently, so I'm still young enough for it not to be weird to be so involved. Or at least that's what I tell myself. Our team was always very... impressed, if not a little bit mortified, by the Snitchcock war machine, which definitely ran a much tighter ship than us. I've heard a lot about the fun v. competitiveness balance being a bit too skewed towards the latter for a lot of people's liking, but I obviously am coming from a biased position. (I also told my teammates that I was not about to annoy an already very busy Bureaucrat or Jimbo as a newbie, definitely feeling vindicated hearing that from an admin)
- And thank you for the peer review offer! I may well take you up on that, especially since my days are not particularly exciting under pandemic lockdown. Have a great weekend! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay so did Snell–Hitchcock reach out to you directly or...? Because the judge says the wondrous Burton-Judson team (i.e. me in this case) was the only one that actually just awkwardly cold called on admins' talk pages asking for support (shoutout to Ruslik0 for obliging). Admittedly was annoyed on Friday when, having hoped to avoid needing to awkwardly explain Scav to complete strangers, I found a UChicago alum + admin ... only to see I had been beaten to it :) WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Kushwaha
Kushwaha article persistent vandalism Editor wikip6 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Full protection needed Editor wikip6 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Editor wikip6: I'm going to defer to the decision made here at RFPP by CaptainEek and decline your request. I understand you may not agree with their decision, but simply asking someone else, as opposed to asking for clarification, isn't going to magically change things. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Editor wikip6, To clarify, full protection is used only quite rarely. Full protection stops everyone but administrators from editing an article, and is only used when there is a nasty content dispute or other serious issue. Semi-protection, which stops IP accounts and anyone with less than 10 edits and four days of experience from editing, is the usual protection we give to articles. However I opted to not give it to the article you asked, as there was rather little disruption, and a good deal of productive edits coming from new users. If you don't agree with their edits, you should discuss the edits on the article's talk page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok Editor wikip6 (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
- CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
- Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Laugharne
Disappointed with that decision friend, my first excursion into the world of wikipedia as an editor has not been a reassuring experieceSirjohnperrot (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Sirjohnperrot: I'm sorry to hear that. Disputes over article content can indeed get heated, especially when people from different viewpoints get together to try and create a cohesive product, as is commonly the case on this project. As for your request, semi-protection would have done nothing to prevent further editing of the article, as all parties involved are able to edit pages that are semi-protected. I apply full protection when there are multiple parties on either side of the dispute reverting each other. This case involved only one editor (you) disagreeing with many; a temporary block for edit-warring is a more appropriate remedy in that case, if discussion does not prove fruitful and edit warring continues. Please note that this isn't necessarily a judgment on the appropriateness of the disputed content. Rather, it's part of the content process--if there is disagreement over what should be included, the status quo is maintained while editors try and come to an agreement on whether or not the new content is appropriate. It appears that there is productive conversation happening right now at the talk page, which is great. Hopefully I've clarified my decision more here. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 20:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Airplaneman:Thank you that's helpful but this is a bit of a culture shock for me, I didn't fully appreciate how vulnerable the facts are on wikipedia. I don't think its very productive for the project to decide what is accurate by consensus but very sadly a facility with wikicode and many years of bluffing practice seem to prevail over intellectual honesty with this user and his buddies.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Sirjohnperrot: You bring up a lot of philosophical points that aren't easily answered. What are facts? What is intellectual honesty? How have Wikipedians decided to deal with those questions, after countless debates and editing conflicts like the one you're currently involved in? Wikipedia:Verifiability is one central response to these questions. And you're right--being a newer contributor is a culture shock, and the learning curve is steeper than I believe it should be. The editing interface needs work. Communication between editors needs to be easier. All of this makes it harder than I believe it is necessary to engage with what really matters--the content. Some level of complexity is to be expected for a project that invites open collaboration, but I believe some sort of progress can be made with the learning curve. What I don't think will go away is disagreement over content. What we can strive to do for that is to try our best to lay out our arguments and decide on a path forward, based on the site's fundamental principles. In the case of this particular disagreement, you've violated the bright-line 3 revert rule. It's designed to discourage people from simply going back and forth uselessly on an article when a dispute isn't yet resolved. Simply put, it's a waste of time when that happens because no progress is being made on the content. I don't think a block will be preventative of "damage" to the encyclopedia here, unless you decide to keep reverting after seeing this message (in which case I'll issue a 24-hour block on editing to save everyone time). Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 20:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Airplaneman: Obviously the facts are what I consider to be the case and intellectual honesty is believing I am right ;)
- What's happened here is actually straightforward, my candidate for being a notable resident Sir James Perrot has been arbitrarily excluded by manipulating the historical integrity of his birthplace. The article's boundaries have just been inaccurately redrawn to suit the editor -they clearly contradict the ones set out at the beginning the History section which have simply been ignored. I've not sure but the rule you mention may have also been broken by the other party.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- And conflicts occur when two parties, both believing they are right, disagree on the facts. I see this playing out on the article's talk page. The three-revert rule that I mentioned above seeks to hard-cap the rate at which editors can undo each other, in an attempt to dissuade mindless fighting and encourage thoughtful discussion. The policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A look at the article history shows that only you have crossed this line (though Snowded made it to three reverts, they did not perform a fourth in the 24-hour timeframe). I'll try and keep an eye on the talk page discussion. It looks like there's some agreement on some things so far, at least. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you are monitoring this would you please explain to St John that telling experienced editors to "grow up' and other insults is not the way to make progress. I'm doing my level best to keep this one content focused but I cannot get him to engage with the key issue - namely that the Town in question is not the same thing as the Parish, Lordship or whatever. I've put two Perrots into the disputed article and added the third to another one where it properly belongs. -----Snowded TALK 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Edit warring to insert Janes Perrot has started again - have flagged for the moment and can submit 3RR report if you don't want to deal with it (which I would understand) -----Snowded TALK 14:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- And conflicts occur when two parties, both believing they are right, disagree on the facts. I see this playing out on the article's talk page. The three-revert rule that I mentioned above seeks to hard-cap the rate at which editors can undo each other, in an attempt to dissuade mindless fighting and encourage thoughtful discussion. The policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A look at the article history shows that only you have crossed this line (though Snowded made it to three reverts, they did not perform a fourth in the 24-hour timeframe). I'll try and keep an eye on the talk page discussion. It looks like there's some agreement on some things so far, at least. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Sirjohnperrot: You bring up a lot of philosophical points that aren't easily answered. What are facts? What is intellectual honesty? How have Wikipedians decided to deal with those questions, after countless debates and editing conflicts like the one you're currently involved in? Wikipedia:Verifiability is one central response to these questions. And you're right--being a newer contributor is a culture shock, and the learning curve is steeper than I believe it should be. The editing interface needs work. Communication between editors needs to be easier. All of this makes it harder than I believe it is necessary to engage with what really matters--the content. Some level of complexity is to be expected for a project that invites open collaboration, but I believe some sort of progress can be made with the learning curve. What I don't think will go away is disagreement over content. What we can strive to do for that is to try our best to lay out our arguments and decide on a path forward, based on the site's fundamental principles. In the case of this particular disagreement, you've violated the bright-line 3 revert rule. It's designed to discourage people from simply going back and forth uselessly on an article when a dispute isn't yet resolved. Simply put, it's a waste of time when that happens because no progress is being made on the content. I don't think a block will be preventative of "damage" to the encyclopedia here, unless you decide to keep reverting after seeing this message (in which case I'll issue a 24-hour block on editing to save everyone time). Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 20:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if Snowded could explain what he means by the "town" of Laugharne it could be a point if departure for reasoned discussion of how it differs from the area dedcribed in the History section of the article. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I've applied full protection for a week. It can be lifted sooner if things are resolved sooner. Yes, 3RR has been violated, but let's see if full protection can serve the purpose of prevention. To note, I do no object to a 3RR report or another admin making a block. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reasonable call, I'll try one more time to formulate the issue and see where it goes. But if the personal attacks continue then that attempt stops -----Snowded TALK 17:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Airplaneman: Happy to report a compromise solution has been reached and a proposed merge of articles agreed as the way forward - please see the Talk page. We'd be obliged if you can now remove protection to enable the process. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Reasonable call, I'll try one more time to formulate the issue and see where it goes. But if the personal attacks continue then that attempt stops -----Snowded TALK 17:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Response to WP:RFP
Hello, recently you declined my request to change protection on Piracy beacause of "not productive"". What do you recommend to make it more productive? Unlocking the page or keep it as it is? Thanks. Nightvour (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Nightvour: Yes, I believe keeping the indefinite semiprotection will be the best use of everyone's time (in other words, semiprotection is working as intended). I have no reason to believe the levels of vandalism on the topic will be any different today than they were three or ten years ago. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
- A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.
- Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community. - The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles
.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an
Please update this page data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_defecation, hey man please update this wrong data from JMP 2020 estimates
- @Raghavway121: I reviewed the source and reverted this edit because it did not appear to match what the source said. If you can point me towards what is wrong and provide a reliable source, I can try to help you. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 07:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/jmp-2019-full-report.pdf
go to page 22 and calculate the 2020 estimates. 40% rate does not reflect present day situations I do not understand how can you show such prejudice and ignorance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavway121 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. See the third column for that data point: "More recent estimates of people defecating in the open (not JMP data but other sources and reports)". Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 13:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
So just remove the JMP old data, why have you kept the 5 year old data, you do understand you should update the data as responsible wikipedia moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghavway121 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Take a look at this recent discussion on the article's talk page: Talk:Open_defecation#The_table_in_prevalence_and_trends. I think your voice could be useful there. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 02:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Justin Beaver
Can you apply PC to Justin Beaver, just to test it, because the article appears to be out of shape. Bieber is not as popular as he was in the 2010s and Beaver's page views have decreased. Regards. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: You make a good point here. Pageviews per day are in the single digits, so I think unprotection will be alright. I'll ping JaGa, who last applied protection on the page, as a courtesy notice. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 06:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This is for your action to put the pending changes lock on Anti-Chinese sentiment. Thank you for keeping the article of my heritage unbiased, it means a lot. GeraldWL 15:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC) |
- @Gerald Waldo Luis: You're most welcome. And thank you for the shiny star! I'd do it for any topic that's under attack, but I think the current pandemic has definitely made this one particularly sensitive. I've also put it on my watchlist. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Whoops... I stomped on you; my bad. Feel free to revert, but it looks like we had basically the exact same idea (right down to the expiry) :P Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Slakr: No worries! No revert necessary :). That's bound to happen when I clerk the page out of chronological order. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Sapna Choudhary : Can You restore it!?
Hello There @Airplaneman:, As I have Interest into Topic based on Indian Places, and Entertainment related topics, I am recreating pages which with time have become notable and have sufficient coverage to them, like i did with Yasser Desai, Kunaal Vermaa, Viral Shah etc. all of these accounts were either created by Banned or blocked user or are creation protected or some of them are redirected, but the major thing is they now have coverage to have a stand alone article on WP, In same way I am intending to create Sapna Choudhary which is salted due to its past history, So i was intending to create this as she is enough notable in India Now to atleast have a wikipedia page, can you restore the draft version for me so that i can edit it and create a non promotional page which meets the WP parameters!? Thanks. also I am intending to create Parmish Verma. Thanks --Dtt1Talk 16:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dtt1: The main reason Sapna Choudhary's article was deleted was because it went through AfD (twice). The sockpuppeting did occur but was not the main reason the article doesn't exist anymore. The most recent version of Parmish Verma was 1 sentence without any references. I'm therefore not comfortable restoring these articles. Both articles were pretty threadbare at the time of their deletions, so I doubt that they would be helpful in starting new articles. Do let me know when you have drafts of the articles and I'll look at un-salting the pages if everything looks good. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Airplaneman Thank You, I would be doing that, will create both in Draft space and will let you know, but I saw both of them are creation protected in the draft section too, can you remove the protection so that I can create the Drafts, Thanks --Dtt1Talk 16:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Dtt1: I've lowered the protection on Draft:Sapna Choudhary and Draft:Parmish Verma so that any autoconfirmed user can create the pages. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Airplaneman can you please have a look at Draft:Parmish Verma, Thanks --Dtt1Talk 05:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Dtt1: Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I took a look at the draft, and I think it's a borderline case. I'm not comfortable moving it to the mainspace as it is, but I also don't think it unambiguously fails the notability standards (and qualify for, say, speedy deletion). There's currently not much content in the article. One thing I noticed was that he's described as a singer, but there's no content about his musical career. I think there'd need to be a stronger claim to notability in the article for me to feel comfortable approving it. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Airplaneman can you please have a look at Draft:Parmish Verma, Thanks --Dtt1Talk 05:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Dtt1: I've lowered the protection on Draft:Sapna Choudhary and Draft:Parmish Verma so that any autoconfirmed user can create the pages. Cheers, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- Airplaneman Thank You, I would be doing that, will create both in Draft space and will let you know, but I saw both of them are creation protected in the draft section too, can you remove the protection so that I can create the Drafts, Thanks --Dtt1Talk 16:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
- There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
- Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
- There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- How time flies... Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 00:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Bad Temper Joe
Hi Arplain, thanks for your contribution for the Bad Temper Joe article. The problem is the user scope creep who is having a lot of fun continuously cancelling the awards section. Could you fix this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilmann67 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Tilmann67: User:Scope creep explains their rationale on Talk:Bad Temper Joe, in a discussion that User:Curb Safe Charmer began. I encourage you to discuss this with them there. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 16:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thanks man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilmann67 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Potential vandal on the Shenyang WS-10 Page
Hello Airplaneman.
Please look into Shenyang WS-10 page. There is this user: RovingPersonalityConstruct
He keeps deleting credible sources and adding his own source, although his own source goes against his intended will.
He did it again today by keeping removing sourced materials including the source themselves. He tried to use his own sources to proving his claims only ended up conflicting himself and he removed his own source.
Today, I added more creditable information about the engine and provided source. He simply removed them all including the source. He is behavior proved to be disruptive, could you please warn him.
Please revert his vandalism and protect the page.
Thank you,
Sincerly
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
- Ajpolino • LuK3
- Jackmcbarn
- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
- There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
How is it possible to have published 6 million articles
Just, how? Or does that figure mean something else? Because that's an average of over 1000 per day, 365 days a year, for 13 years... Tolkien5 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Follow up to RPP about COI, User:Kalari Poothara (a WP:SPA) has blindly reverted without explanation, reinserting the lyrics of a mantra, ignoring WP:NOTLYRICS [1] as Wikipedia is not a database, these agenda-driven editors are treating an encyclopedia as their personal space, WP:OWN. Not so long ago, this editor had made some strong claims with original research at talk page. Please do something. 2409:4073:4E36:1425:6860:4F5C:253F:C2FD (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, if this behavior continues and attempts to communicate are rebuffed, blocks are in order. I don't think semiprotection is the best call for preventing disruption from one or two accounts, especially if they are (or are soon to be) autoconfirmed. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 17:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
I would like to thank on what you did on maikadra massacre. But can't you add a picture of it, we already had it and of course you may had it at hand. Thanks🙏🏾🙏🏾 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermias Abat (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermias Abat: I'm not quite sure what you mean here. In any case, the page is no longer protected, so you may edit it as long as you follow the neutral point of view and verifiability policies. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for stopping the impersonator! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
- @Destroyeraa: No problem! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
LTA impersonation accounts
Like what you did with DestroyeraaDestroyeraa(or whatever there name is), please do not give block templates to these LTA impersonation accounts and shut down TPA immediately. They are LTAs. Thank you. Possibly Wyatt2049 or MRY HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @HurricaneTracker495: Thanks for the heads-up! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 21:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Airplaneman and EdJohnston for protecting my talk page. The vandal used to be an IP vandal who thought Oshwah was holy. Then the vandal took to impersonating me and some other users. The vandal takes to impersonating me for some reason...~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, it was 2 seperate people. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @HurricaneTracker495: There are several people out there who are troublemakers and hate me for reverting vandalism. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, it was 2 seperate people. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Airplaneman and EdJohnston for protecting my talk page. The vandal used to be an IP vandal who thought Oshwah was holy. Then the vandal took to impersonating me and some other users. The vandal takes to impersonating me for some reason...~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Administrators' newsletter – January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
- Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.
- You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
. The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason). - Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
- By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized
RovingPersonalityConstruct vandalizing Type 054A frigate page again
Hi,
I'd just like to inform you that user RovingPersonalityConstruct is still vandalizing the type 054A page and type 075 LHD page by deleting useful informations with source over and over. Thank you Markg002 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people
, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
- The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover
- Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!
File deletion
Hi! I recently uploaded a file to wikipedia to publish it in an article, but I realised that the file already exists, although it is not at the top of the article. I need you to remove my file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orphan%27s_Benefit_(1941).jpg Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Isinbill; I'm a friend of Airplaneman's who happens to keep an eye on his talk page. I've tagged your file for Speedy Deletion, so hopefully, another admin may come along and delete it for you in case Airplaneman doesn't get to it first. Brambleclawx 02:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Untitled Courtesy Section Split: Draft Retrieval
Hello! I wanted to retrieve my draft: Sreenath Gopinath, which was deleted due to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreenath 1234 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Sreenath 1234. As per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, I will fulfill undeletion requests for drafts that have content that can be improved before being brought to the mainspace. Unfortunately, I do not consider Draft:Sreenath Gopinath to have content that can be improved; if I saw the contents of the now-deleted draft, I would again delete it as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I endorse Jimfbleak's deletion rationale, as well as the advice he gave you on User talk:Sreenath 1234. As Jim noted, please refer to the following pages for more information on what sort of content is suitable for Wikipedia: WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people). Please take this into consideration for your future contributions. Regards, Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 03:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacBook Air (M1)
Hey there, since you're at least the second largest contributor to the MacBook articles as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to inform you that MacBook Air (M1) is being considered for deletion. I'm sure your opinion would be valued. Thanks! Andibrema (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
What was the text on Pokémon Mansion?
I can't find any archives that showed the text of this article. Copy paste text on talk page (I'm assuming that the article is small). 2005-Fan (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Good article drive notice
Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Access to Deleted Article: Working Bikes
Airplaneman,
I am hoping to get a copy of the recently deleted page - Working Bikes. It got speedy deleted and I would at least like to have a copy for my own records. (sorry about the double entry)
Thank you Dhaddonpearson (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Access to Deleted Article: Working Bikes
Airplaneman,
I am trying to get a copy of a speedy deleted article: Working Bikes. So that I can have it for my own records, thank you.