Jump to content

User talk:Britishfinance

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.45.120.179 (talk) at 00:29, 9 December 2019 (→‎Temporary, I hope?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Banana Split

Ma tu di arte non capisci un cazzo. Mangiati sta banana!!
Ma tu di arte non capisci un cazzo. Mangiati sta banana!!

Saluti da Maurizio Cattelan!! o Banksy!! Il tridimensionalismo è vera arte!!

Temporary, I hope?

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Belated Barnstars

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

The Next Signpost

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

additional detail from the 82.132* accounts

SPA/COI accounts

SPA/COI operate at three basic levels;

Controlling content

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

Creating distractions

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

Engineering nastiness

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

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

Using the tools

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

First things first

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

Case in hand

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps. --82.132.215.61 (talk)

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

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

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

Reversion of talk page comments

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

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

Reliable Sources Extinction Symbol

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Giants2008. Many thanks for your help. I understand re the sourcing, I have given a full paragraph on the sourcing (with footnote) in each of the articles, however, I will also convert into an in-line citation attached to the table heading. The table is a download from the DoBIH database, but usefully, the DoBIH also provide an online searchable interface so any entry can be checked separately (e.g. I should not need to reference each individual line). Re the second part about the lede, I can also fix that - do you have examples of FLs that might look similar to the type of lists I am doing that might serve as a guide/template? I will try and pick one list as a test-case (with your fixes above), however, if you have any guidance on a particular one that you would use, I would appreciate your view on that. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For lead sections, I recommend taking a look at WP:FLC and reading the leads for some of the candidates. There are sure to be several that will be helpful as guides for your lists. I don't know if there's one that's similar to your lists, but even unrelated lists should give you some basic ideas. You'll find that most of them are three paragraphs or so, and provide an introduction to the subject in question while being interesting for the readers. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart

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

Hi Beetstra and thanks for that. Never knew that existed, but will give it a try! Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, I was to lazy to do it myself [3]. You may or may not find this discussion a little interesting.[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I keep finding new areas on WP that I never knew existed???? I'll fill that ref in. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, I did that since you appeased the gods, I'm not that lazy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, have you come across Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? Or even the Wikipedia:Reference desk? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång facepalming myself there! Have never seen those two other sets of pages? I have been on WP for over year and never saw the reference desk - how do others find this? I am amazed that editors have the time and bandwidth to answer these questions? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have been here since 2009, you pick up stuff. I think you stumble over "it" or someone tells you, but reference desk is actually linked on the mainpage, under "Other areas of Wikipedia". Wikipedia:Dashboard may have something of interest. Oh, and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

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

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm sorry Britishfinance, but I have to step away from this site for a while, for my own sake. Anyone, including you, are welcome to update the summary. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Starship.paint. Very sorry to hear that but I can understand. You are a great editor (your work is really very good), and unfortunately got caught in a rule that many of us (myself included) don't fully appreciate at times. I have a feeling we will see you back again some day. All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Flouting the rule was indeed my mistake. But had the admin been Dennis Brown [5], things would have turned out differently. That said, I know that Tony was acting in the interests of the project, and that his actions were within the range of acceptable ones. starship.paint (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly went to defcon 1 quickly; tensions are very high on WP?!? Britishfinance (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think tensions was the cause. I'd just like to leave a quote. If the reason the WMF stepped in was because they thought that we couldn’t handle cases like this, the way to prove them right is to not take any action when someone targets their staff members. Yes, this whole situation is a complete mess, but blocking people for inappropriate actions in it and letting the appeals process play out shows that we do have community self-governances and that it should be taken seriously. starship.paint (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

WMF noticeboard

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

Thanks Carcharoth. Have fixed the typo now. Yes, I thought that there was one but that I just could not find it. Seem like an obvious idea given that everyone accepts now that en-Wiki/ArbCom/WMF need to talk more often in a forum that everybody on en-Wiki sees (e.g. not a meta noticeboard). thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edits of 'Anand Kumar' article reverted?

I added a comment on the talk page of 'Anand Kumar' article. I do not know how to quote you there (or even required to quote you) but please reply to my concerns. Thanks! Creepy.clown.wiki (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy.clown.wiki, I have responded on the talk page of the article; tread carefully, as these kinds of BLP violations have material sanctions. Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Ulmus edits.

Hello Britishfinance. Please note that 193.39.159.73 is a shared (library) IP address, and most edits from there aren't vandalism. The Ulmus edits are by a different person and are genuine and based on verifiable facts, knowledge & experience. Please don't revert these (unless of course there are obvious signs of vandalism). Thank you. 213.48.83.176.

213.48.83.176, no problem. I would advise you to either get an account, or leave longer edit summaries (and even a note on the talk page of each article), because (1) you are making material edits (deleting referenced sections and other such), with minimal summaries, and (2) from an IP that has a "rap sheet" of blocks and vandalism. I will take your word for it that your edits are in good faith, but I think you would help your case with an account, or at least, a fuller explanation of your aims on each article on its TP. thanks and happy editing. Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to the weird and wonderful world of disambiguation pages! You made Mountains of the Dingle Peninsula into a dab page, but now there all kinds of articles linking to it. Could you correct those links to point to the right articles? A tool I find helpful is DisamAssist. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gorthian! Silly of me to forget that, however, I will fix it. All the best. Britishfinance (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nadia Marcinko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

British mountains in finance

Thank you for quality articles about such as List of Corbett mountains in Scotland, Leprechaun economics, Double Irish arrangement, Nadia Marcinko and Josepha Madigan, some substantially re-written or saved, some with your spectacular images, for support, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2253 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that Gerda Arendt, it is much appreciated! Britishfinance (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Why would you want to convict view media reports someone that has never been charged. How do you know she is not helping or cooperating in the investigation, you don't. WP:NPOV Your carefully crafted draft cites, recitations of news that was reported 14 years ago. If she is charged then run with it, but I think it should be done only if she is convicted, otherwise from a legal perspective she could come after the site for its slanted claims in your draft.--2600:8802:2200:2320:29ED:4D34:26:940A (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(regarding the Nadia Marcinko article). You have the wrong impression of how Wikipedia functions. We don't take views on things or provide information that would be used for investigations. We simply report on what independent reliable sources say (per WP:RS). It is that simple. You are deleting material which is referenced to recent articles from some of the most reliable sources that Wikipedia uses (per WP:RS/P), including WP:SIGCOV pieces by The Guardian and Wired. Don't make legal threats (a big mistake on Wikipedia); if any of the RS are successfully sued by the subject, then the articles will be withdrawn; however, sources like The Guardian do not have a record of printing such material. Britishfinance (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich

I am a new Wikipedia contributor and have done the main tutorials and introductions and read the protocols and conventions carefully. Looking at the many contributions you have made I am in awe as to how you do it. I see you have been given many accolades and that is what I will aspire to. But I digress. The purpose of communicating with you is to get your feedback on what constitutes worthwhile additions and what doesn’t. I have a good friend in Florida who happens to be a neighbor of Sharon Rich, the author. I mentioned to her that I had become a contributor to Wikipedia and she told me that Sharon had both her own website and a Wikipedia article but was most upset at what had occurred to her. She believes that additions had been added to her Wikipedia article which were not relevant to her. She just wanted a simple page that has similar content to that on her website. I said I would have a look at it for her and I saw what she meant. Could I call upon your kind consideration to give me permission to delete those parts that are causing her distress? Bzcons44 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this on the article talk page of Sharon Rich. Britishfinance (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond here: you may not introduce that content again on the Sharon Rich article, and certainly not based on a partial memoir from a heavily involved party published on a non-neutral website. She does not appear to be notable as a Scientologist at all, and placing that template on her page is total overkill. A note about her nephew may be acceptable, but it requires better sourcing than Tony Ortega's website. Please don't make me put a BLP warning, or a note about discretionary sanctions, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. You have reverted two items.
The first is that Sharon Rich is the aunt of Nathan Rich. I participated in the fix-up of Rich's BLP, and its AfD. Tony Ortega is considered a useful source on Scientology (per AfD) and I don't use his site for views but just biographical details; Nathan Rich's own book Scythe Tleppo states that Sharon is his aunt; and here is a video made by a Scientology group, that at 0.30 has Sharon Rich being interviewed as Nathan Rich's aunt. Scientology and the Aftermath: Nathan Rich (made as reply to Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath)
The second revert is regarding Sharon's position as a Scientologist. She gets a mention in Andrew Morton's book [Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography], and has publically gone on record in the earlier video regarding Nathan (made as part of the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath event). Someone doesn't have to be a "notable Scientologist" for the fact that they are a Scientologist to be noted in their BLP (just as long as there is an RS to verify it; which there is). However, on reflection, I think you are right re the template.
I hope this clarifies why chronicling that she is the aunt of Nathan Rich is appropriate and worthwhile (it would be odd not to make the connection between two WP:BLPs), and ditto for the fact that she is a Scientologist (although without the template), and he connection to the Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. Britishfinance (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That she is a Scientologist, fine; that she is the aunt of an anti-Scientologist, I suppose. That she gets a mention here or there, and is interviewed in a documentary, that is not good enough: BLP calls for high standards, and that really means published sources. I watched a bit of that video--that is not the kind of evidence that will ever be acceptable here; if I understand it correctly it's made to smear the man's character. That's not just not-neutral, that's unreliable. But putting that in her article places that onus on her, and that's not cool either, since we don't know what she said exactly and in what context and all that. For all we know it was edited or warped. Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath is out too: again we're talking about a documentary from a TV channel whose neutrality and reliability is questionable, and this person is only noteworthy in relation to one single person interviewed in one of 36 episodes. Whether Tony Ortega is useful or not cannot be decided via an AfD, and "useful" as he may be, I do not see why he should be acceptable as a source in a BLP. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies. Thanks. Agreed re the video as unsuitable for a BLP, but it is just to triangulate that it is not hard to show she is his aunt (i.e. she is not going to appear in a glossy production as his aunt, if that was untrue); however, the right source is his book, and I do think that Tony Ortega is a useful additional source (yes, AfD is not a decider of an RS, but where it gets a larger audience than the RS noticeboard, it is not a bad process, imho). Also agreed re Leah Remini (which is covered in his BLP and more related to him then Sharon; he was a noted subject of the Remini series). So, I will note that she is a scientologist (ref to Andrew Morton), and Nathan Rich is her nephew (ref to Nathan and support ref by Tony)? Also, I think I should paste our discussion above to her Talk Page for other editors as a guide (and they may have other views)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies, I went away just as we finished the above discussion and for some reason when I returned, I never really wanted to execute what we agreed above. Ultimately, this BLP's association with Scientology and her controversial nephew, Nathan Rich, is clearly a cause of anguish for her, and I ultimately don't want to inflict anguish on an ordinary person with facts that are not core to their WP notability (even if interesting). Is it cowardly of me to do that - perhaps I could always just paste the above into her BLP Talk Page and leave to others to decide? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing cowardly about leaving out this kind of information; I think it is the right thing to do. And indeed, it is not central to her notability. I would leave it be. You can put it on the talk page if you like, but I think the more knowledgeable editors will find their way to the history and find it there just as easily. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that Drmies, makes sense to me :) Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IIEA page neutrality dispute

Dear Britishfinance,

Further to our discussion on the IIEA talk page, I have opened up a dispute resolution space here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk%3AInstitute_of_International_and_European_Affairs_discussion

Perhaps this can be used to resolve the issues I have raised about the page in a friendly way.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Ballystrahan (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:THEA Award Logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:THEA Award Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asaii

Is there a reason you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asaii rather than letting it be closed as WP:SOFTDELETE? It would have been eligible for such a close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49. My fear is that this article has a UPE aspect (made by an SPA), and thus a soft delete will see it return in some other guise. I was hoping that a re-list would generate some stronger reaction for you to get a more stable result. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also happy to revert my relist if you want to go for a soft delete? Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, my preference would be to have it soft deleted. Some sort of COI seems likely and I suspect it was created in order to help nudge along the merger but I think it's unlikely to be recreated and even having the soft delete on record would still be helpful should it ever be recreated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, okay no problem, I will revert my relist. good luck with it. Britishfinance (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, forgot to congratulate you on your adminship - was away during your RfA but you would have had my !vote (not that you needed it) - well done. Britishfinance (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, thanks! So far so good. The support of the NPP community was so meaningful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Cheers for closing that MfD, you beat me to it :) stwalkerster (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I needed the practice. Britishfinance (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn

As the closer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn, please see the recent edits to Castle Rock (TV series) and the discussion at Talk:Castle Rock (TV series)#Alan Pangborn. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 11:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Djm-leighpark – that is disappointing to hear. I wonder if DRV is the best way. For example, if an AfD was closed as a straight Redirect, and someone removed the Redirect, the change would be just reverted rather than going back to DRV? Reverting back to the merge tags that the XFDcloser places on the article could be a start. At least it would undo a non-consensus merge, but you are back to having someone then do the merge (which is always a slight flaw of AfD with merge). If an editor started to edit war against a consensus AfD close (and it was a consensus), then, after a talk page discussion, you are probably heading for ANI (or just call in an admin). Does that make sense? Britishfinance (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a chew. Despite what the mergers are claiming its a mess. I could back out the redirect but might lead to an edit war. I need to look up WP:DRV first ... Or maybe need to go through formal merge proposals is another option. Got to dash for a bit. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion !votes were (if I have not miscounted) nom(delete), 2(keep), 1(keep or merge), 8(merge), 0(redirect), 0(merge or redirect). I am concerned merge means merge and redirect means redirect and the majority of this afd was to retain and attribute content from the original article and there was no consensus to redirect. I regard the current outcome (as regards the article) as controversial, as such should have been handled by an admin per WP:BADNAC]] if that was predictable (arguably it was if digging deeply enough) but possibly not. The only case for WP:DRV come under if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. ... the significant new information being those !voting merge did not seems to either have the competency or will to carry out there commitment to merge content. Wikipedia:Articles for merging seems dead. I also have options of re-running the AfD .... that looks horrible .... or perhaps doing a WP:PROMERGE to Dark Half but it might be controversial and need a discusssion and I'd want to restore the page for the banner. (Bear in mind I would prefer keep to that merge).Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Djm-leighpark. I think you would find it hard to argue that it was a WP:BADNAC given that last 9 !votes in a row (notwithstanding one was also a Keep/Merge) were all aligned to merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). That is almost as unambiguous as it gets for a NAC. For example, if the last two !votes were different, I would have left it (or considered a re-list). The problem is that another editor(s) has ignored the AfD and Redirected to another destination. I would simply revert their edits to bring it back to the immediate post-AfD status of having a tag to merge to Stephen King (Castle Rock). At that stage, a discussion on the talk page should be had, ideally with the participants of the AfD. Unless their view has changed (if it has, then that can have an effect), then they can re-confirm it – has this already happened? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK as closer I'll go with your suggestion. Slightly weird as I dont support the target Stephen King (Castle Rock) but that's the way to go.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section pointers in edit summaries

Hello Britishfinance. Your recent edit at ANI contains no pointer in the edit summary as to what section it pertains to. The edit summary is just '(reply)'. If you check the edit history of ANI you'll notice that most edits have these pointers. It would be helpful if you could somehow manage to preserve these pointers, so that anyone who has ANI on their watchlist can tell if you are working on a topic that is of interest to them. It's my impression that hitting the 'Edit' button next to the section header generally pre-fills the edit summary field with a section pointer, allowing you to save it with your edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that EdJohnston, and will make sure I do in future. All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you closed the AFD but its still tagged in article

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list Dream Focus 10:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dream Focus, must be something affecting the xfd closer - I will check it out. Britishfinance (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NACs on ANI

Please stop aggressively closing discussions after minimal input. I have had to reopen one today. Closing discussions is normally done by admins on the admin boards, long-stale discussions can be closed or archived but many of those you have closed, the ink is barely dry on the original complaint. As a rule of thumb, three days with no input is fine to close. Less than 24h, not so much. Guy (help!) 15:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, thanks for that and I hear you. I thought given the user was longer term blocked it was done, but subsequent events proved me wrong. I see your rationale now. Sorry again, Britishfinance (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, there's no rush, the archive bot cleans up mostly. Guy (help!) 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

There's a lot of sense in what you said here. It's a shame it wasn't on WT:RfA where it would have more exposure. Perhaps you can work into a thread there one of the days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung, that is very nice of you to take the time out to say that, and I will certainly give it some thought. All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal guideline workshop

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit curious to why you aren't contributing here as it is a good faith effort to put things in place. It isn't too late to share your input as someone who appears to be critical of portals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Knowledgekid87, I thought I was contributing there? I think some of my additions were re-formatted so it might be buried "deeper" in there, but I have participated as I do consider it a good-faith workshop. In fairness, my initial contributions were to discuss ways to "materially" alter the trajectory of portals by trying to suggest more substantive changes (I labeled them A and B), however, I am not sure any of that has taken root. I also felt that SW's idea of an RfP was also worthy (as I think you did), but it also did not seem to take root. The discussion seems to be settling into more incremental changes about the existing structures to avoid dispute at MfD, which I am not sure will produce meaningful improvements for portals (I am reminded of John Kenneth Galbraith's quote [6]), and thus not really address the core problem? However, I have not participated in WP workshops before and I don't want to be disruptive or an annoyance if the general view is otherwise. Britishfinance (talk)
My apologies as I didn't see you on the participating list. As for your comment, I really hope that isn't the case and that the workshop can become the new guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that we now have a "participant" list for the final pitch to the community regarding guideline status. Invites were sent out, so those that didn't bother participating in the discussion really cant complain as much with the results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict} No problem Knowledgekid87. As I said, I really do think some deeper thinking is needed in this area to "move the dial" for portals. I think one of the reasons why WP has worked (where the Encylopedia Britannica did not), is how flexible and adaptive it is. Editors are free to do things that they think work, and will stop doing things that don't work – E.g. the famous concept of Creative destruction. Any time that we find ourselves trying to force something to work/defend what is not working in WP, we are drifting into Encylopedia Britannica thinking. However, this is a personal view, and in itself, might be a flawed assumption? All the best, Britishfinance (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief Wiggum

Keeping in mind AFD WP:NOTAVOTE, can you append your closure by discussing the strength or arguments on both sides? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus. I am not sure there is any more to be gained here? With 15 valid contributions - a well attended AfD - only one supported Delete (and even that contribution also contemplated a Merge). After the RS from 4meter4, the final next 8 valid contributions were 7 Keeps and 1 Merge. While AfD is NOTAVOTE, it would be an extraordinary SUPERVOTE for any closer to overturn such a consensus unless the RS was unambiguously a complete fail. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. IMHO most of the keep votes did not provide a good rationale, and I'd lean towards merge, but I can see how this could be controversial. We can revisit this in 5 or 10 years again I guess :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as you will also know from being active at AfD, it is not uncommon to see a unamious/highly charged Keep from 5 years ago, become an uncontested Delete at 2nd AfD. Best of luck and great to see your regular contributions at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Our notability standards in fiction are tightening, so in 5-10 years such entries may be merged. Or, there is always a chance some new source will appear and then it can be safe. We can wait for either outcome. I just in general recommend adding a bit more analysis to closing discussions unless a case is really clear. In this one I am not challenging your decision (much), I just felt it would benefit from a sentence or two of justification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your MfD Closure

I noticed that you closed an MfD for Article Rescue Squadron after it was open for only 7 hours. Despite the number of early "keep" !votes, this is far too early to assess consensus and end the discussion. Will you reconsider? –dlthewave ☎ 22:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlthewave, the core issue is that MfD is not really the right forum for the concern regarding the ARS list and whether members use it to WP:CANVASS (as noted in this MfD, and the previous keep in June; and even the other past historical MfDs of this page). Almost every WikiProject has a similar list of topic articles that have been nominated at AfD (just like ARS), and none of these lists are considered in violation of WP:CANVASS. The best way to raise this issue, which is really about ARS member conduct, is via an RfC and a wider community discussion. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of consensus that MfD was the wrong venue but I'm not sure if "keep" was the right outcome. When editors opened a discussion at Village Pump in an effort to find the correct venue, folks cited your "keep" closure as evidence that the matter was already decided, which I don't believe was your intent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (which is often flawed) is this was actually a speedy keep per WP:SCLOSE and perhaps likely should have been explicitly marked and closed as such. I read the closure as within the spirit of the guidelines for speedy keep and have the feeling the same result would be seen at WP:DRV if someone felt necessary to escalate it there.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Djm-leighpark, it is more common to make such closures as a Speedy Keep, however, given the context, I closed it as a Keep.
Dlthewave, having read the new RfC at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Shut_down_Article_Rescue_Squadron, I think the discussion is mispresented. There are lots of lists of articles for deletion in WP (e.g. WP:DELSORT, WP:AALERTS), as Joe Roe points out. The issue of CANVASS is specific to editor conduct; and while there are lots of concerns being posted as that RfC about ARS conduct, there are no compelling diffs/AfDs being presented showing that canvassing by ARS members unfairly swung an AfD? Without that, there is little to tangibly discuss, and it could ultimately boomerang back. Hope that helps as a view from someone who has done a lot of AfDs, but has no link with the ARS. Britishfinance (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick gander at your AfD clerking

Hi there BF. I had been noticing relists you'd performed a fair amount recently when I was looking at possible AfDs to close. When your name was floated to me by someone as a potential RfA candidate (which doesn't surprise me - RfA is definitely something you should be giving serious consideration to doing) I mentioned this. I have - well before I became a sysop - disliked non-administrative actions (outside of closing a speedy delete or speedy keep) at AfD so my comment had that slant. I decided it only fair to take a more systematic rather than impressionistic view of your relists. In doing so I found a mostly positive track record. The one suggestion I would have is that you consider not doing multiple relists on the same AfD (especially as a non-admin) - this one being an egregious case where you relisted three times and didn't, in my view, comply with the burden WP:RELIST suggests for a third (or further) relist. I try not to do more than one action on any AfD simply because I think fresh eyes bring value though this is obviously not a policy or guideline requirement. Other than that (and my general hang-up about the unconscious bias non-sysops are likely to have) I think your work shows good judgement. The kind of judgement that should really lead you to consider just getting the mop yourself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is much appreciated Barkeep49, and thank you for taking the time like that. I completely agree with your observation where I did multiple re-lists on the same AfD, and it is something I will fully take on board. I am conscious of the value of a "soft delete" and or NAC re-list bias, so am feeling my way through it, trying to give more precise reasons for a re-list, but it is still a work-in-progress.
Wow re the RfA advice, I never saw myself in that category or guise? I have never done a GA-type article which I always felt was a competency you had to demonstrate to pass an RfA? However, you are the first to ever say it to me, and given that I rank your view highly, it is also much appreciated. I will give it some thought. Britishfinance (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, I write at (great) length about how I see RfA at the moment over here. I don't think GA is strictly necessary to pass RfA at this time. Helpful? Yes. But not necessary - I think the number one criteria is sysops who are respected saying you're ready. Anyhow glad you're open to the idea. Noodle on it. Perhaps see if anyone besides myself and the person who floated your name to me suggests it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting read Barkeep49, and some great insight there (e.g. the asymmetry of effort in !voting). It certainly was not on my radar screen until you (and I now understand the other), floated the idea; I will definitely reflect on it. thanks again :) Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Breakenridge

Please allow AfD discussions to run for a minimum of 7 full days unless one of the criteria for speedy keep is met, and then please indicate which criterion applies. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michig, I closed it 24 hours early as the result became unambiguous; the nom stopped challenging the ongoing WP:HEY almost six days ago (one day after listing, when the HEY started), and having read the updated references, I could see why. It is now that uncommon to close such AfDs early, here is an example after only a few days: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 United States Senate elections. If I see that the nom has disappeared for many days and the result is unambiguous, I am willing to close it a day earlier. Hope that makes sense. However, I didn't mean any discourtesy by it - to nom or others - and if you would like me to unclose it, I will? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 United States Senate elections, the closer specified the early close criterion that applied (WP:SNOW - one that should be used with caution). The valid reasons for closing an AfD early as a keep are detailed at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I don't think there's anything to be gained by reopening the discussion in this case. --Michig (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michih and appreciate your responses (it is all learning!). I have never been a huge fan of quoting WP:SNOW as I sometimes feel it is a bit harsh when it goes against the nom. In this case, I preferred to focus on the specifics of quite a detailed WP:HEY (i.e the starting nom was not that irrational), and that there was no consensus to Delete. That probably means SNOW, but I preferred not to use it here, which I think it okay? I don't like closing AfDs with any "bite" in the summary if I can avoid it. I have spent many hours in AfD and know the effort it takes on all sides. If I can close an AfD early and efficiently for the good of all parties, I will do that, but I do have a bias to avoiding use of SNOW if possible - do you think I am wrong in that? thanks. 10:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You have to leave the AfD running for a full 7 days unless one of the accepted criteria for an early close is met. WP:SNOW is fine if it's absolutely clear that the article is going to be kept, but if the AfD has been running for 6 days already I would advise just to let it run for another day, to avoid the close being overturned on procedural grounds at WP:DRV. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries

As I am not posting to the portal work shop anymore I just wanted to point out that the use of galleries in articles causes many problems as outlined by a few rules...such as. .. WP:Gallery - WP:WEIGHT - MOS:ACCIM. In short different browsers display things differently (sometime mini or gigantic images). Many people with font sizes settings will end up with having to use the side scrolling option to view images and this will also cause the whole article to invoke the side scroll option. I many cases in mobile view the images will stack and cause users to have to scroll a huge amount before they see sourced prose text. That said in the examples you gave that are not causing undue weight to a sub section is a great way to use them even if they causes a few problems.--Moxy 🍁 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moxy, and sorry if I am "doing people's head in" trying to brain-storm different avenues and ideas. Obviously, nobody is going to "solve" portals in one go, and perhaps they shouldn't as their is quite a diversity, even in my experience of them. However, if we can find some simple solutions to smaller abandoned portals (e.g. <5 FA articles), then maybe this is a viable alternative with a number of benefits. However, I am not a technology person, so beyond a point, I am less effective? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CESNUR article

Since you recently commented on the ANI thread about an organized promotion effort related to CESNUR, I'd like to ask you to help review that organization's article here on Wikipedia. In an attempt to comply with the spirit of WP:CANVAS, the same message is being sent to everyone who commented on the ANI thread, and no specific editing-conflict is being referenced: the article could simply benefit from more eyeballs. Feoffer (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer and thanks for the ping. I had only looked at this tangentially as I saw an editor raise concerns about it at AfD as a source. Is your sense that CESNUR is justified as a WP article, but not as an RS for other articles? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I understand wikipedia policy and consensus to be, yes. It's a very tricky article because the pro-sect advocates at CESNUR produce a lot of material suggesting they're neutral scholars when really they're active partisans. But, the other side of that debate, the "anti-cult movement", are also rabid partisans in the opposite direction and they produce a lot of material too. As a result, when you search for CESNUR, most of the material is either PROMOTIONAL created by CESNUR & its allies or polemic created by 'cult awareness' types. There are some good scholarly sources, but it'll take lots f eyeballs to find the right balance. Feoffer (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RS and RB?

Just wondering what your basis was for deciding that the cited sources didn't meet reliability criteria? DS (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonflySixtyseven, I looked at the RS for that addition of [7], which is a package tour/travel site, which would not be considered an RS for probably anything, and particularly as a source regarding the Rao Bahadur award? I am willing to be convinced if you think otherwise, but I don't think I am coming from an unreasonable position here? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not the tour/travel site, sorry — I meant the journal. Note that the user supplied two sources the second time. DS (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict} Also, if you look at the history of the Rao Bahadur article, DragonflySixtyseven, you will see that like you, I have tried to clean-up this article a few times now given the poor edits/vandalization which it is regularly subject to (I even added a photo or the award in question). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DragonflySixtyseven, just seeing the second source now and had missed that (probably from the fatigue of patrolling this article, and being wary of sources that I cannot check myself online). However, it seems like you have more expertise/understanding of sources in this part of the world, so I would be happy to go with whatever you think is appropriate here and happy for you to revert me as required. All the best :) Britishfinance (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon much closer examination, I think it's a case of WP:SYNTH. The journal is a reliable source for Muthanna's accomplishments, and the travel site says he got the RB for his accomplishments, THEREFORE can we not say that he got the RB for his accomplishments? (No. No we cannot.) Sorry about the bother. DS (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DragonflySixtyseven, together we have solved this, well done. :) Britishfinance (talk)

Close

wonder if you can close a WP:SKCRIT withdrawn nomination. AfD Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightburst, unfortunately there has been a Delete !vote registered at the AfD which makes a SKCRIT close more problematic, however, having read the article and AfD, I have !voted Keep and added a reference from The Daily Telegraph which should help. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was not aware of the second part of SKCRIT The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Badarawa

Hello, thank you very much for your concern about the page I created, I will provide sources and citation to make sure that the page reach the general notability guideline. the reason why i did not provide reference is because I thought some basic information does not need citations. Especially places and natural phenomenon. Have a nice day. Anasskoko (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Anasskoko. Draftspace is a better/safer area for developing articles until they are ready for mainspace. You just need to make sure you have circa 3 clear references that show the topic has WP:GNG. Once you have that, you at least have a stub, and a right to be in mainspace. Without this, your article will be repeatedly moved to draftspace (or even proposed for WP:CSD by the community. Good luck with it! Britishfinance (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Britishfinance&oldid=929904299"