Jump to content

User talk:Woody

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charlie063 (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 25 August 2020 (→Req to delete: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Woody
User talk:Woody
Special:Contributions/Woody
User:Woody/Awards
User:Woody/Articles
User:Woody/sandbox
User
Talk
Contributions
Awards
Articles
Sandbox
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colors TV

Hi, I was going to approve the draft but its not technically possible to approve (publish) the draft until the redirect is moved, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv beat me to it and has unprotected it. Woody (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Regarding this request I made. Did you look at the actual edits or did you only count the usages of undo and rollback? There have been endless reverts over the last couple weeks and multiple discussions on the talk page opened up. Nihlus 05:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assumption but yes I looked at the edits only going back over the last few days and didn't see a pattern of reverting. I then checked the talk page for any recent discussion but couldn't see one and then I checked the talk pages of all the people who edited the article in the last few days: there were no requests to discuss their edits or any reversions/edit wars etc. Full protection is used to stop edit wars and not to protect any one version of an article. You might want to try an editnotice in the first instance that points to a discussion and consensus over any contentious material. Woody (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this isn't a pattern of reverting: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Nihlus 02:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you are right, most of those edits are straight reverts. They were mixed in with other edits and I will admit I missed some of them particularly as I checked the edits using popups which isn't as clear as it could be when it comes to table edits. I'm still not seeing any discussion on any talk pages from any of those editors in the plethora of diffs above though. Start a discussion, invite the editors who are making the reverts to it and come to a consensus. If they continue to make reverts then they will be blocked for edit warring and/or the page protected. Looking at the page history again it doesn't seem to need any protection at the moment. Woody (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the editors are not using the talk page, which is why protection is needed. Nihlus 13:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the usual 3rr warnings. I have protected the page and created a section on the talk page for discussion. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page in the new section. Incidentally, it might be worth clearing up the talk page to clarify your concerns. Woody (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a note: the edit history/edit summary is not the correct place for a discussion or a consensus. Woody (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for protecting multiple pages. They are a mess from all the fans who flock to edit it in order to put their own take on how events took place. RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4) might be another candidate for protection as well. Nihlus 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey Woody, I hope you are well. Thank you for your help over at the RFPP backlog. It was getting a little long but looks good now. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ software

Hello. I think that this section form disc jockey that you removed in the article needs to be restored. DJ softwares are highly used nowdays and it need a new article. Why did you remove it? It is not copyrighted material, 100% Wikipedia and additional work from me. Regards Saunderson Anreef (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you work for?

Stop pushing State department edits on pages. The Yemen war is full of disinformation you and your people are supporting, you're the problem here. Ingoman (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same sanctions notice you messaged me, I did not violate it, Tbhotch did, but you are supporting his PoV edit so you harass me instead of him. I know what this is, and I'm not going to just shut up about it. Ingoman (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit your partisan bias on this issue? You didn't answer the question you just asked me to stop bringing it up. The manufactured consensus on this issue is illegitimate. Ingoman (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no shit no one is listening, and yet only I am blamed for 'disruptive' edits, while you preserve the factually incorrect status quo. You are just making excuses. Why am I even talking to you? You're not listening either, your mind is completely closed because you are paid to just stop me from fixing factual issues. Ingoman (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is fake, the supposed consensus is all the same people over and over again "deciding" for everyone else, with the flimsiest rationales like google results or "terrorism". This call for consensus is just a call for me to shut up. Ingoman (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll again point out you literally singled me out for sanctions by your Orwellian SCW sanctions organization, but you expect me to believe you are acting in good faith and are not some kind of spook. What possible evidence is there that you are acting in good faith? It's absurd to even consider you as a constructive actor in this. Ingoman (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11)

Hello! I made an edit request on the talk page of the article above (which is on full protection). The edits take no part on the discussion which cause the protection, and since the edit has been done on all other seasons articles for this particular series, and no one reverted them for over a week now, I think it's safe to say there are no discussions regarding it. I was wondering if you could make the edit for me. Thanks – Artmanha (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection

Hi Woody. Regarding this protection, wasn't it supposed to be WP:TPROT as I requested, and not only WP:SEMI? I'm not sure semi really achieves the purpose. Regards, --Muhandes (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the guidelines at WP:HIGHRISK and the rough numbers there. It has 400 transclusions, no history of vandalism and no BLP implications so I went with semi. I am not averse to any other admin increasing it up to template but I don't see the requirement. I tend to err on the side of not being too restrictive where possible. Woody (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to avoid was non-intentional harmful edits by inexperienced editors, rather than vandalism, mostly since I no longer visit Wikipedia daily to watch over it. Hopefully I managed to get some other editors to watch it, so we should be fine. Thanks, --Muhandes (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I mentioned you on AN regarding protection of 2020 China India skirmishes article and you can comment if you like. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25

Hi Woody, as a respected editor I wondered if you had a few moments to contribute to a second RfC on the retention of an image of the Reverse of the Australian Antarctic Medal. It's been re-nominated for deletion by one editor at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25, following consensus on its retention previously. As the original RfC was only comprised of 4 views, I think it might help the other editor involved if there was a wider input. It's all fairly short, so takes no more than a minute or two of reading, and you are welcome to express any opinion you think is appropriate. Thanks in advance if you can spare the time. Kangaresearch 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir edit warring

I thought that the defamatory phrases that was being added by the new user [16] [17], which included "racist remark", "a Punjabi with ugly face", "demanded that Wazir be banned from NA proceedings", could be removed immediately as per BLP, which states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. That is why I removed the content. Please check both articles Mohsin Dawar, Ali Wazir. Hope it was not edit-warring on my part? Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khestwol: By the definition of edit warring, yes you were. But it takes two to edit-war and so was the other editor. The key part of the quote you are using from BLP is that is unsourced or poorly sourced. The edits were sourced to newspaper articles that stated exactly what the editor was quoting (in one case a bit too closely as it looks like a direct copy). The same goes for both articles. We need to present a neutral article based on verifiable information based on reliable sources. If you have an issue with another editor's edits, if they aren't clearly vandalism, then discuss them on the article talk page and not in edit summaries. Woody (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

188.222.245.203 evading block

188.222.245.203 (talk · contribs) is evading block with account LFC2020 (talk · contribs). Please see [18]. SLBedit (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludogorets

I was editing the page by adding new content, fixing errors and correcting fallacies. GodCipherDivine is the one who kept reverting without a reason, more than the allowed 3 times. Why isn't he issued a warning about that then? I don't agree that this is justice. In addition, I reincluded previous information from 2010 at the creation of the article which was later wrongly altered during the years. People vandalised the page and nobody acted accordingly during the years. Now I am fixing it and I am found guilty? I thought Wikipedia represented the truth, but actually this only proves that the mass opinion is more important. Do you understand that if for example 80% of the people are wrong and a fallacy is accepted amongst them due to a "democratic voting", this doesn't make it true? Seimbru (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seimbru: I did warn him as well (they have since chosen to remove the warning which they are entitled to do). Wikipedia works through verifiying the information found in reliable sources so if there is consensus among reliable sources then we go with that not what you personally think (or what forums think). You both reverted well past WP:3RR which this is a perfect example of, in that you both think you are right which is absolutely no excuse for edit warring. If you have a dispute, then come to a consensus on the talk page. I was .5mm away from blocking you both from the article. As it is, use the talk page. Woody (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine)

Hello! Your submission of Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine)

On 19 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mark Ormrod was the first UK soldier to survive a triple amputation during the War in Afghanistan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mark Ormrod (Royal Marine)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRC

I'm struggling to see what the reasoning behind the reverts on MRC (company)? The source the IP has added appears to verify the addition. Am I missing something? Woody (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC) The adding of that specific wording to the lead isn't the "uncited" change (although I still object to how it is worded)[reply]

The actual, uncited change is the addition of Peter Rabbit 2 and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run to the films list, with no indication on Wikipedia or otherwise that MRC has any stake in these productions (they are listed as Sony and Paramount releases respectively). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "Studio films it’s co-financed include upcoming The Spongebob Movie: Sponge on the Run and Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway." Woody (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since amended:

My concern was the addition of Peter Rabbit 2 and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run to the films list. Would being a co-financier make it eligible to "count" as something released by MRC, even though they are nominally Sony and Paramount releases? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: I've added the conversation here to keep it all in one place (and try to clear up the confusion that will be caused by you refactoring your comments while I replied). Asking questions like that should be asked before a revert war rather than after. Given there is a question about it, you clearly can't call them vandalism and give shouty edit summaries. Yes, as per the source, they are a production company (and as per others such as Imdb etc). Woody (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

84.71.16.91

Could you please block user:84.71.16.91 ASAP. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you get user:Javenclause too. CLCStudent (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't edited after their last warning. Maybe they will stop it and edit constructively. Woody (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I changed my mind I got edit conflicted while blocking them. Alls well that ends well. Woody (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Bangalore riots

Thanks. I've been busy alerting people, etc. I've imposed a couple of topic bans today, more will be needed. Opindia has targeted an editor there. opindia.com/2020/08/bengaluru-violence-muslim-mob-bias-wikipedia/ Doug Weller talk 14:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I stumbled into it while clearing through WP:RFPP. I noticed you were handing out notices when I edit-conflicted on a couple! The article (hopefully) looks to be settling down now though that opindia piece is presumably the source of all these WP:SPAs that have popped up. I've added it to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Woody (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, any help is appreciated. These are a real mess. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as ever Gerda Arendt. You truly are a shining light around here and seeing your posts always lights up any day on here. Your presence is truly appreciated. Cheers, Woody (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like to hear that, especially in a year which I called a year of vision - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Henderson

The IP has now added the unsourced information again. No discussion of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Henderson&action=history. I would ask you to revert their edit and act fairly with regard to your decision. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN: Note they were blocked at 18:50 when I noticed they had reverted. Woody (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have problem with your recent action

Hello, I am semi active Wikipedia editor mostly for MMA and i have a problem with your recent actions related to the "current issue" with Dan Handerson article. You are taking action to the wrong people. The IP user created this mess and should be only person blocked and Dan Handerson page should have been semi protected only! I may seek additional assistance regarding this matter if not immediately resolved. Kent Bargo (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kent Bargo: Thank you for your comment. Please feel free to offer your opinion on the content issue on Talk:Dan Henderson. An edit war is between two editors, not one: IPs have as much right to edit as anyone else. If you have an issue with an administrative action of mine please feel free to open this upon for review at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Woody (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand unregistered have right to edit, but does not have right to make mess that caused the wrong users being blocked. This issue was a simple resolution as part of normal fixing process if we see someone on these MMA page messing up the content. We fix it. As this case only the IP made the mess by disobeying. I am unbias and not defending anyone as this just part a normal process of fixing. The immediately request i want to see are reduced proper protection level and revert all block or notices/warning to wrong users. Honestly, i don`t you get it. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kent Bargo:. You say you've been contributing to Wikipedia by working on MMA articles, so thanks and welcome! Needless to say, I agree with you on this, and appreciate your having taken the time to say it. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afc

Hello Woody, I am requesting to be added to the list at AFC. I am currently an NPP patroller and would love to help reduce the backlog at AFC during my free time. I have knowledge in the notability guidelines, manual of style and naming system since I am also active at RM. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Req to delete

i agree there are muliple contributors @Kavenville created the article his accounts stock puppets are Vijayclicker93 Saveykum93 Saveykum93 Vamb30 all these accounts are banned so request you to kindly delete the article (Charlie063 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Charlie063)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woody&oldid=974890431"