Jump to content

User talk:MarioGom

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SaffronSettee (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 24 February 2022 (→‎GlobalPlatform: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Proxying

Given that you filed this sockpuppet report, you might be interested in this edit. It shows that Ponyo's and RoySmith's conclusion "More likely coordinated than straight up socking" was accurate. I will compile more evidence and present it at WP:AE per this comment.VR talk 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: Thank you for the heads up. I have some further notes about that case that I'll share in the relevant venue. MarioGom (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, Mario: no need for AE. Mario showed me the diff as well and I went ahead and applied a TBAN under DS. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GeneralNotability, but at whose direction was TDB making those edits? Surely, the master deserves sanctions too. VR talk 21:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, that is an excellent question, but unfortunately one we're probably not going to be able to conclusively answer with available evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: I'll post some evidence on my sandbox and ping you two. I have a hunch and I think its worth exploring, otherwise the next time the master will use a more careful puppet. Such puppets are a huge drain on volunteer time. TDB was a tendentious editor who WP:GAMED our rules for disruptive purposes - I have evidence of that too. A few more TDB's and good editors will be pushed away from this topic area.VR talk 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe posting it publicly isn't the best idea as it enables future puppetry. Should I email it to ArbCom or someone in private?VR talk 21:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, you're welcome to send things my way via email for review, but I suspect ArbCom is the correct final destination. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do.VR talk 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability I see you're a checkuser, so I want to ask you some questions. Can CU link a current account to one that hasn't edited in months? Is it because IP addresses change location after a while? What if an account was CU'd, say, last year as part of a SPI? Do checkusers keep notes on an account's location (eg. account X was in city Y on date Z), so that even if an account hasn't edited in months its location can still be linked to a current account? Thanks, VR talk 21:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent: CheckUser data (e.g. IP) is retained for 90 days. So you can assume that a CheckUser can only confirm accounts within a 90-day window. There's a private CU wiki and mailing list, and CheckUsers might know some additional long-term info about some SPI cases (e.g. sockfarm geolocates to country X). Reporting stale accounts (no edits in 90 days) is usually not useful at SPI. MarioGom (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and that's what I suspected. The question I've been asking is why would someone resort to meatpuppetry as opposed to make the edit themselves? The most obvious reason is to evade CU. But who would need to evade CU? It seems like someone who has another active(-ish) account on wikipedia. An account inactive for years probably won't get caught by CU. Feel free to play the devil's advocate.VR talk 02:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, someone who is unable to make the edit - perhaps someone who is thoroughly blocked right now, including their IP(s). Alternatively (and this is very much hypothetical), multiple separate editors who are being coordinated by a third party. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xerox 1200

Hi. you recently marked the Xerox 1200 article as having unreliable sources, but I am unsure as to which ones you mean. is there a tool you used to determine this? Or did you see a source you know to be unreliable? I apologise for my ignorance in not knowing how to determine this myself. Can you give me a pointer? AVandewerdt (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AVandewerdt: First of all, thank you for creating the article.
I didn't review every source, but I spotted a couple of problems:
I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is the relevant policy and a good overview on how to assess reliability. If you have any doubt, feel free to ask. MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. I have removed four cites including the two you identified as well as a corporate blog post. The facts cited are now supported by new cites that are reliable AVandewerdt (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Anyone can edit Wikipedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Anyone can edit Wikipedia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Anyone can edit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Silveira Leal page.

Hi MarioGom, thanks for reviewing the article and take your time to help new reviewers like me. It was based on the Portuguese page, but I tried to use references in English as much as I could. It would be great if you help me to add the Translated page tag in the right place. TL-WP-CA (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TL-WP-CA: Thanks, I have placed the tag myself. See it here: [1]. Best, MarioGom (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hey @MarioGom, I am not aware that I have any conflicts of interest concerning the articles I am editing on WP. Any specific questions? Is it about involve.me? ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

interstellarpoliceman: Yes, I'm concerned about COI with involve.me, TEDxVienna, and anything related to monochrom. MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already debated this with some users roughly 2 years ago. I am a volunteer at MQW and Medienkunstarchiv Vienna, Austria. I am interested in working on articles related to art and (subversive) culture in Austria, because I think there is a lot of interesting stuff out there, but it's hardly covered. And sometimes, if it is covered, let's say the article about Public Netbase, it is rather bad. I'm not part of TEDxVienna, monochrom, etc. As an example, I do indeed know about involve.me because it was started by the TEDxVienna founder, and I like that event here in Vienna. That's why I looked into involve.me and thought it might be worth an entry. To be honest, software is not my area of expertise, and that's why I also think the article turned out a bit subpar. In case you have specific questions, please let me know. All the very best. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarpoliceman: Q21 seems to have a close connection to monochrom, and your editing history looks like coordinated with 3 or 4 other people with real life connections to monochrom, Johannes Grenzfurthner, etc. Four of these accounts now jumping into the creation of involve.me (now at Draft:involve.me) in a narrow timeframe looks like coordinated editing, see WP:COI, WP:CANVASSING, and WP:MEAT. MarioGom (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q21 consists of more than 60 institutions, all of them have their scenes and connections, but they are not related to each other besides the fact that they are located at Museumsquartier, a big cultural area in Vienna. There is no common employer or financial gain. If you like I can provide you with info. You refer to users who "jumped in" (as you call it). I know one of them and he is part of the Vienna hacker community and a member of the hackspace Metalab. All the best. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
interstellarpoliceman: Yes, indeed. I think we're talking about the same user with an obvious conflict of interest with the Metalab article too. Note that conflict of interest does not necessarily involve financial gain. I recommend reading WP:COI. MarioGom (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I can definitely talk to the guy, I see him every now and then at events. My main job is working at a publishing house. I never added anything related to my day job to WP, just interesting stuff from my art background. I am definitely a fan of projects like Public Netbase, TEDxVienna, monochrom... that's why I am interested in helping with their WP articles, but I do not know any of them personally. Thanks for the conversation. ☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 10:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
interstellarpoliceman: Thank you. Best, MarioGom (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World_Federation_of_Associations_of_Pediatric_Surgeons

Dear Sir, I am trying to cope with all the regulations but the demands are contradicting. I had added lots of references from literature about the history of the Association and its website but previous mods removed them. I can add them back again and submit for review if that would make things clearer. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianzaco (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pianzaco: Ok. Let's go step by step, is "Pianzaco" the name of your employer? MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom: No PIANZA is my name. I am a physician and freelance digital marketer. I do pro bono work for surgeons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pianzaco (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pianzaco: Ok, thank you for clarifying this. As a digital marketer working for surgeons, even if it is pro bono, our conflict of interest guidelines apply. You can use the Articles for Creation process to submit drafts for review. MarioGom (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring back the kinemaster page so i can remove the text and make oringial ones?

I'm sorry for copying the txt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RESF

Hi, You removed the Rocky Enterprise Software article for copyright reasons. Did you note that everything on the website https://rockylinux.org/ is under BSD license? Ref: https://github.com/rocky-linux/rockylinux.org/blob/main/LICENSE https://rockylinux.org/licensing --Heikkikoskinen (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heikkikoskinen: Thanks for the update. I didn't see the license before, since the footer simply states © 2020-2021 Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation. All rights reserved. I'm asking for a second opinion on how we can comply with BSD-3 New terms, since they require attaching the license text. Note that a regular reference does not count as attribution. Attribution is usually done with the {{Free-content attribution}} template. MarioGom (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep: Hi! You performed a revdel I requested at Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation. It turns out the content is BSD licensed, which might be compatible with Wikipedia if the appropriate license boilerplate (license text copy) is placed in the talk page. I'm not sure what should be done in this kind of case...? Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom@Heikkikoskinen As I read it the BSD license applies to the software, not the website. The website carries a clear copyright notice as MarioGom points out. Reading the license it talks about the software code and binary forms thereof, nothing else. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep: Note that the above repository holds the source code (and content) for the website, not the software. But still it might be ambiguous. I'm also ok with everything staying as is, since the website has no clearly marked content license. MarioGom (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's analogous to the MediaWiki software which is available under the GNU GPL and text content here on Wikipedia which is not under the GNU GPL but another license. Just because the Rockylinux software is available under BSD doesn't mean that covers the website too. If it did why does the website contain a prominent copyright notice and not "this content is under the BSD license"? Nthep (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep: Fair enough. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to add, I'm always open to reconsidering if there is new information e.g. the license statement on the webpage changes. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MarioGom

hi Dear , About removed the Ibrahim Al-Dulaimi

I agree with Wikipedia's policy of G3 standards
I contributed, persevered, and worked very hard in obtaining private information.
Through my searches and searches, I made sure of all sources and activities to get to the real information
I leave for make sure From some sources: http://www.winstarchem.com/news-detail1.php?newsId=6
i hope you try to look for it
Thank you and i greetings to you )

DodeDznIQ (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DodeDznIQ: Please, see WP:RS. Unless there are reliable sources, Wikipedia is no place for that article. Private information is not usable in Wikipedia articles per WP:V. MarioGom (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i know about WP:RS but if you don't believe me, you can get information from the him members.
More reliable sources will be added.
I wish you a nice and happy day, Greetings. DodeDznIQ (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DodeDznIQ: It doesn't matter if I believe it or not. A Wikipedia article needs reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and I know that, Of course. DodeDznIQ (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarioGom

Thanks for your message and the information about disclosure of Interest. The page was edited without knowing about these regulations for two purposes:

. There were wrong data regarding university affiliation and authorships that could have consequences for the person affected and others. The person who wrote the article did a good job but was not well-informed. I did not know that the way to correct mistakes in a page was by making a complaint through talk. I assume that the complaint goes to the initial author of the page or to the person who made the changes, I do not know. In this case, any of those persons could read it or not and could have time to change it or not and in the meanwhile, the persons affected are unnecessarily exposed to the spread of harmful information.

. Additionally, there was a note saying that the article lacked references and I took the time to add them.

Thanks for the info MarioGom. Sometimes complex to understand how does this work, but happy at the same time to see and learn Lucastron21 (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Continental Association on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pau

Dear Mario:

I sent you a message on the 30 of January (see below). I have not received any answer. My situation is quite uncomfortable. There is a page on me that I modify because it was not well documented and there was information that was creating trouble for me including a wrong affiliation. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. Additionally, I add some references to the parts that were (more or less) correct.

Now, you include a message on the article regarding potential payments that is quite ambiguous. Someone could even interpret that I was paying myself, while I have no relation at all with the person that wrote the original article. I feel this is very unfair, to be honest.

I think there must be some kind of solution. I wait for your instructions on how to solve this. As a curator, I suggest you revert those changes you think are inappropriate. Just be aware that this will mean going back to providing inaccurate and potentially harmful information on me.

I fully rely on your wise criteria and advice


Thanks for your message and the information about disclosure of Interest. The page was edited without knowing about these regulations for two purposes:

. There were wrong data regarding university affiliation and authorships that could have consequences for the person affected and others. The person who wrote the article did a good job but was not well-informed. I did not know that the way to correct mistakes in a page was by making a complaint through talk. I assume that the complaint goes to the initial author of the page or to the person who made the changes, I do not know. In this case, any of those persons could read it or not and could have time to change it or not and in the meanwhile, the persons affected are unnecessarily exposed to the spread of harmful information.

. Additionally, there was a note saying that the article lacked references and I took the time to add them.

Thanks for the info MarioGom. Sometimes complex to understand how does this work, but happy at the same time to see and learn Lucastron21 (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucastron21 (talk • contribs)

Lucastron21: I added the message about undisclosed payments because Captainoatmeal was a sockpuppet by Index of Sciences LTD, a spam company paid by Pau Pérez-Sales to create the article. In case of COI, you can edit the article, in particular uncontroversial edits, although you are recommended to request changes in the talk page. Changes can be requested using the {{Request edit}} template, which will add your request to a queue monitored by other users. You can receive further help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Edit requests. Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mario: This is fascinating. I have Googled them and found no info on that company. And Index of Science has just a facebook acount with not much info. Where can I consult that info on the disclosure of payment?. Furthermore, if you have that info, as a curator, it wouldn't be better to simply delete the page?. Hope you can advice.Lucastron21 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lucastron21: Most of their creations were deleted under speedy deletion criteria G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). However, it does not apply in this case because the page has substantial edits by other users. About Index of Sciences LTD, you can check more info at Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Index of Sciences LTD. I'm not posting here the billing records, since they contain some sensitive information. MarioGom (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalPlatform

I noticed that Draft:GlobalPlatform was incubated and I’m trying to understand why to rectify the problem. I was directed to WP:COIEDIT, despite following the rules regarding COI declaration and going through AfC. Hopefully this is a case that my COI declaration was missed and nothing more serious than that.

If there was a problem with the references on the draft, it would be good to understand which I should avoid using. The draft included a number of what I would deem to be credible independent references, such as Computerworld, Electronics Weekly and EE Times. If it is the case that more references need to be added to the existing ones, then please let us know and we can look into this.

I would appreciate if you could take a look at the draft again, hopefully this can be resolved quickly.SaffronSettee (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarioGom&oldid=1073783617"