User talk:Girth Summit

Minister for Education (1995–1997)

Rangsitpol was appointed Minister of Education. His challenge was for Thailand to achieving educational excellence by the year 2007. During his two -year tenure,Rangsitpol launched education reforms between 1995-1997 .

The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community.

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform has led to the following results:

• Free12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.

• Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English as a second or foreign language and computer literacy.

• The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase)

• Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.

School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

He is Thai Education Reformer.Why did you delete the paragraph in state of fixing the grammar.2403:6200:89A8:1E1D:6938:FBF4:5908:AC16 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rangsitpol was accused by the person in the youtube clip .It is his habit ,in the clip here he also accused someone else.The why he was sue by Rangsitpol.I am surprised this accusation that was sue by the subject and the subject had won the case should be mentioned.2403:6200:89A8:1E1D:6938:FBF4:5908:AC16 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

original url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6V4BEGeSHE 2403:6200:89A8:1E1D:6938:FBF4:5908:AC16 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I will reply on the article talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

2006 the same broken link reference

Sukavich Rangsitpol

As one of 111 executive members of the TRT, he was banned from political activities for five years after the 2006 coup d'état.

He expressed no wish to return to politics after the ban expired.

Wan Muhamad Noor Matha

As one of 111 executive members of the TRT, he was banned from political activities for five years after the 2006 coup d'état.

Sudarat Keyuraphan

As one of 111 executive members of the TRT, she was banned from political activities for five years after the 2006 coup d'état.

• The link was the same it should be the reference of the same thing as the other 2 politicians which is

As one of 111 executive members of the TRT, he was banned from political activities for five years after the 2006 coup d'état.

He expressed no wish to return to politics after the ban expired.should be deleted 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:3DB7:17B7:E892:923E (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor - I don't know if you're watching, but I don't know why you've put this stuff on my talk page. Could you explain what you're asking me to do, or to comment on please? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reporting 2601:C8:200:A520:BCCB:29D3:C002:4031

2601:C8:200:A520:BCCB:29D3:C002:4031 (talk · contribs)

Block evasion by blocked editor BumbleBeast57445. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, thanks for the heads up. I've blocked the /64 for block evasion.

Ponyo, NinjaRobotPirate - I see you've both blocked this range recently for block evasion. This seems obviously to be the person using the account BumbleBeast57445, which was globally locked recently by Green Giant as a result of this ANI thread. If it's likely that this is connected to an existing LTA or sockmaster, is there anything further that needs to be done to tidy up? Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

BumbleBeast57445 is probably DarwinandBrianEdits.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Connor McGregor

Hello, Girth Summit, as you know we've reached consensus in the Talk:Conor_McGregor page. There's now a related discussion and RfC going on in WP:RSN for sherdog.com as an expansion of our previous consensus. I would like to hear your opinion since you had participated in the previous discussion and made the proposal for final consensus. Thanks in advance.Lordpermaximum (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I'll try to find time to read through and comment if I have anything to add. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am confused

Hi, you deleted my one sentence on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo which you said "added nothing." The article didn't have anything my sentence said before I put it in. Can you please put it back up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOfficialThanos (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

TheOfficialThanos what is t you think your sentence adds that isn't already there, and what source would you use to support it?  GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Kangleipak

Could you take care of this as well? the creator keeps recreating it, unsourced in project space. Praxidicae (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, sure thing - gone. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reporting 64.53.195.148

64.53.195.148 (talk · contribs)

Block evasion by editor MakaveliReed who is blocked for changing date ranges for unexplained reasons. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, hi. Looks like this IP was blocked already; I'm not familiar with the account you believe this IP is connected to, so I can't comment on that; might be better to report to SPI, or plain old AIV, if disruptions starts up after the block expires. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would report this issue to Ad Orientem since he know about this editor, but unfortunately he retired. I see no reason to report the IP at SPI because they only responded to existing accounts, not IPs. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, fair point about SPI - sock hunting isn't really my area of expertise. I guess AIV would be the best venue, with a note about which account you suspect of being the block evader, it's more likely to get a timely response than approaching an individual admin. I miss Ad Orientem, and hope that he will return to editing in the future. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem might come back to Wikipedia but we don't know for sure. I know some editors did leave for awhile but ending up coming back several mouths later. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Biography of Living person

Deformation

-EEng

1)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/982653094

It was the accusations and he was the one who filed the deformation lawsuit to clear his name .

The deformation case can not clear any wrongdoing .2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:FD50:CF3:1B62:9703 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC) https://www.uzo.net/bnnj/meisai.php?id=4075&fbclid=IwAR12GVFvDrqTSJiEtiydRX5vvaaFjVSYHiC7X-0A0tRUYR7z3k_ije_xLgU 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:FD50:CF3:1B62:9703 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Sukhavich responded to the charges with a defamation suit against Mr Arkhom .

He was accused and he won the deformation case .Why is it in his biography?

And now the false information in in the reference too.2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:FD50:CF3:1B62:9703 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP - I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here, and I'm not willing to try to guess. The article has been reworded since I made that edit, but by someone who has access to the sources - perhaps you should try to explain your position on its talk page? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 07:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I wrote on the talk page ,it was deleted.

The accusations is now written twice in the page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/982802360

The minister who brought free 12 years education to Thailand his article is full of accusations.

You english is better than mines,you was asking for the proof.He sue Mr.Archom who was the accusations and won the cases.

If someone accused you and you sued the person.You won the deformation case .Should the case be mentioned in your biography or not .2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:9D03:7FFF:F008:C1D (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

I want to change my vote in the Sherdog RfC. Do I strike my vote and add a new one after the votes? – ².O.^Boxing 10:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing I confess I'm not an authority on the etiquette, but I don't think people will be too picky about how you do it so long as it's clear. I'd suggest that you unbold your original vote, strike through it, then out a revised vote directly underneath with an explanatory comment. If anyone tells you that's wrong, feel free to blame me! GirthSummit _(blether) 10:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Baha I'll be sure to point the finger your way if needed. Thanks very muchly for the advice. – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Regards

Thank you for the information you left on my talk page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Tony Peter (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ken Tony Peter, you're welcome. I saw the message you left me on commons too. Basically, we need to use pictures that gave been released by their owner under a suitable license. Very commonly, that means using pictures that an editor has taken themselves, perhaps if you were attending a game? What we can't do is grab pictures off the Internet. Quiet a few of the articles I've written have no picture, purely because I've not been able to find a freely licenced one - that's annoying, but it's just the way it is I'm afraid. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Negative Biography

I wrote in the talk page the information you deleted from his biography but it was deleted from talk page.

In his biography has 3 accusations which are false information it came into his Thai Wikipedia using English reference.

https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%82%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%8A_%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A5

Please Considering add the following information that you deleted to our Education Minister who founded school for 4.53 million Thai Children age between 3-17 years old between 1995-1997

Proposed addition

Minister for Education (1995–1997) Rangsitpol was appointed Minister of Education. His challenge was for Thailand to achieving educational excellence by the year 2007. During his two -year tenure,Rangsitpol launched education reforms between 1995-1997 . The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community. The Reform Program of 1996. A sense that major changes are needed in education is reflected in the recently introduced "reform program". It is built around four major improvements: improving the physical state of schools upgrading the quality of teachers reforming learning and teaching methods streamlining administration http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform 1996 has led to the following results: 1)Free12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens. 2)Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English as a second or foreign language and computer literacy. 3)The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase) 4)Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government. 5) Thailand has implemented School-based management (SBM) policy in 1997 to overcoming a profound crisis in the education system. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decentralisation-And-School-Based-Management-In-Gamage-Sooksomchitra/73d67d185318eaf95a227b8bfb297d2bd6b26750 Establish effective Provincial Education Councils with strong community membership. The purpose of decentralization is to ensure that local education needs are met, there should be a close relationship between community representatives and officials . Thus, decentralization will require a careful balance between the guidance of community selected representatives and government officials. To representing local needs and priorities. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:9D03:7FFF:F008:C1D (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, as I said when I removed the content, I feel that a detailed discussion of the UNESCO's assessment of education reforms in Thailand would belong at Education in Thailand, but not at the biographical article about the Minister for Education. As for the accusations that you mention, I'm afraid I don't recognise that - I don't see any accusations of impropriety on the page, and to say that someone was embroiled in a scandal is not to say that he was guilty of any wrongdoing; if academic sources have written about this (one is cited, with a direct quotations, in the article) there's no reason I can see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. With regard to the Thai Wiki page, we at EnWiki have no control over the content there, but from what I can see Thai Wiki is not using EnWiki as a source, they are using the same academic source that we are. With all that being said, the correct place to have this discussion is over at the article's talk page, where other editors with an interest in the subject matter will be able to weigh in, not here at my talk page. I can only suggest that you discuss it there. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I wrote in the talk page and it was deleted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/983726677 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:9D03:7FFF:F008:C1D (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that. I think that the problem was that you were mixing up the points you were making with a load of text you were proposing be added to the article, and it was very hard to make sense of. I'd suggest that you attempt to address things one at a time, and be specific about the changes you want to make, and the problems you have with the source. From my perspective, it looks like there is a reliable source literally saying that he became embroiled in the scandal - you'll have to be clear about why you think that should be removed. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It was Mr.Akom accusations in the Parliament no confidence vote.He won the vote and sue Mr.Akom .Mr. Akom lost the case its was the deformation case .

The LGBTQ ban was never been approved.

The 100 millions baht donation if its was true the party would be dissolved.The source was from Malaysian Australian and American Literature and its based on Fake News.The subject sue the person and won the case .(He also won the no confidence vote about those accusations.)2403:6200:89A7:9EC6:2868:7111:6958:D884 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

PDC

Hey, Girth Summit. I'm here because I'm sort of out of options short of ANI, and I'd always prefer to handle things some other way, and you have some experience with this editor. If you can't help, I'll take this to ANI, but I'd really rather this person not end up top banned from their clear area of highest interest. I'd rather find another solution if possible.

Pasdecomplot has been warned multiple times over months by multiple editors about making accusations of bad faith, both at talk pages and in edit summaries, and they just won’t stop.

Editors in contentious areas should expect pushback. They should expect to have to defend every edit, to have other editors push back, to have to talk and talk and talk before making even small edits. PDC wants to make sweeping edits to an extremely contentious area – Tibetan Buddhism and China – and if another editor disagrees with their edits, they immediately go to accusations of bad faith, misrepresentation of sources, and hounding. I’ll note that I have only a general understanding of the subject, so I have no idea whether PDC’s edits are helpful or not. My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations.

PDC now has nearly 2000 edits. They are no longer a newbie. They are ignoring our policies on assuming good faith, and they’re doing it flagrantly and unrepentantly. I hate to suggest they be topic banned from their clear area of highest interest, but I am at a loss, here. Personally all I want to see is forbidding them from making any accusation of any kind against any other editor (broadly construed; that is, no referring "bad faith edits" either) either on talk or in edit summaries, for at least six months.

Many editors have tried to help PDC understand this. These are just some of the more recent:

Usedtobecool tried to explain Sept 21

PDC continued to accuse others of bad faith editing September 30: 1 2 3

Message on PDC's talk from Cullen328, who asks for an explanation. 4

PDC replies, including further accusations of bad faith in the reply and subsequent replies: 5

Warning from me, which included a plea for PDC to stop accusing any other editor of bad faith, noted as seen: 6

Continuing to accuse others of bad faith edits, misrepresentation, and hounding October 19: 7 8 9

Warning about it seen and removed: 10

Sorry if this feels like I'm dumping my problem (I can't act; PDC thinks I have it in for them) in your lap. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, I'll be happy to help if I can. Let me review the diffs then I'll comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Valereee, I'm concerned this goes beyond the issues around failing to assume good faith - I'm concerned about some of the recent editing at BLPs, specifically WP:COATRACKING and WP:POV being introduced to WP:BLP articles.

I've spent a bit of time looking into the recent history of Chen Quanguo. I have no interest in whitewashing the article of a Chinese government official, but at the same time I think some of this goes a bit far:

• This series of edits modifies some existing verbiage to read Tibet's ethnic majority has been swamped by promoting economic development that encourages migration, of Han Chinese, - the word 'swamped' was not use in the source, and it's not a word that I think is acceptable when describing the movements of ethnic groups. It also details the number of self-immolations that took place between 2009 and 2019, with an unsourced assertion that 'most' of these took place during Chen's tenure as head of Tibet.
• This edit adds, in Wikipedia's voice, that the self-immolations were seen as ...an offering by the self-immolators of their bodies to show the world how badly Tibet is suffering.. This feels like advocacy.

I'm not saying that any of this material is untrue, but introducing all this into a biographical article about a government official seems like COATRACKING. Cullen328 and El C have both interacted with PDC with regard to BLP articles in the past, I'd greatly appreciate their thoughts if they have time. I don't have time right now to dig through their other BLP contribs recently, but I'm concerned that someone who is so recently off a TBan about BLPs is editing like this. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there have been concerns voiced about that. There was a long thread at RSN which PDC seems to believe concluded with a blanket statement that International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia were all reliable sources for articles covering China and Tibetan Buddhism. —valereee (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I'll try to get chance to review that, but I'm worried less about reliability of the sources (or indeed the veracity of the claims), so much as turning a biographical article about a particular person into a campaigning piece about the injustices of the Chinese regime in Tibet - I mean, there's more content about the regime in Tibet in that article now than there is actual biographical material, it looks like a classic coatrack. I'll wait to see whether Cullen or El C have any comments to add, but this may need to go to BLPN for review. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not every article about a Chinese leader needs to cover Buddhist self-immolation, and especially not in the voice of Free Tibet. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no doubt that Pasdecomplot is 100% aware that they should not be making such attacks on editors in that manner, and they have been warned more than enough times. This can not continue; at this point, regretfully, I would support using blocks to get their attention: escalating blocks for each new PA, or maybe even an indef is warranted here with the condition that they explain why they have been doing what they know full well they should not be doing and why anyone should believe that things will be different going forward. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• There is a thread beginning October 1 on my talk page titled "A good answer" where this editor posts a gigantic wall of text trying to convince me that they are 100% right and another editor is 100% wrong. I think this editor is pretty much incapable of editing neutrally or collaborating with editors with a different point of view. They consistently attribute disagreement to bad faith by others. So I too support escalating sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Cullen328, Usedtobecool - I've given them an extended warning on their talk, indicating that it has to stop. I may raise a thread at BLPN to get more opinions on the matter described above. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, GS. Ideally I'd like to be able to completely disengage from PDC, as I don't think my continued involvement is productive; I only came here because I'd been pinged to a complaint and didn't feel I could ignore it. Can I just ping you to any future complaints and leave it at that? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Valereee, sure thing, please do. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Usedtobecool, Valereee - just FYI, I've started a thread at BLPN concerning the issues with the article outlined above. I'm notifying you because of your prior involvement with the editor in question; I'd be genuinely grateful for your thoughts, whether or not you agree with me on the content. Please don't comment if you think this is improper notification, or if you just want to disengage, of if you're plain-old not interested. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll watch and comment if I think there's anything constructive I can contribute, but unless I'm seeing something that needs to be mentioned and hasn't been, it's best all around if I just pipe down. :D —valereee (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I knew of the discussion as soon as it was initiated. I went back after your post had received two replies. What I wanted to do most urgently there was to remove severe BLPvios (IMO) from the first reply that you received (objectively evil; comparison with nazis)​, which I would have done anywhere else on Wikipedia. I left because it's BLPN for chrissake, there must be editors well-versed in BLP policies to remove things like that if it's as bad as it seems it is to me (and no one has). I might look back again at some point. Thanks though. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Omg yes a Nazi comparison... Because its so weird to compare one autocratic party-state committing genocide with another autocratic party-state committing genocide. Unless you’re suggesting that our pages on the Uyghur genocide and Holocaust are fake news there isn't a BLP issue here. In the future don’t tag me like this, its not constructive for anyone involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I needed to tag you because I was commenting about your comment. I have nothing else to add. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Might as well comment on the discussion I’ve been tagged in to... I’ve also found Pasdecomplot’s editing style to be disruptive and there are definitely elements of WP:COATRACK in how they’re going about things (they seem to repeat the same information on a number of related pages). I also can’t say I always follow their arguments about why something should be included even when the sourcing is sub-par, they seem to have been given a number of chances yet still don’t understand what people have an issue with vis-a-vis their editing style. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comparison, and the comments on editing style @Horse Eye's Back. It's constructive to read, and I'll take note about editing the same info on related pages. Specific comments on editing style and content are welcome!

What's not very constructive are accusations, which begin this thread, and seem to be based on a misinterpretation of an unanswered talk on Chen Quanguo: A retraction of the misinterpretation would be a good faith sign @CaradhrasAiguo that the misinterpretation was a simple error. Thanks. No retraction, no response.

It's this request for clarification that seems to be reinterpreted as an accusation of bad faith, which it certainly is not.

And on the flip side, the request was never answered. Period.

I've reviewed policy on "bad faith" for an exhaustive answer on the subject of accusations of bad faith. I have no need to go through the experience again (and @Usedtobecool was very helpful afterwards). Thus, the request was not an accusation.

That aside, the topic on Chen Quanguo at BLPN has a Nazi comparison? Imagine. I'll take a look. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

CVUA trainer

Hi Girth, Good day. You might want to have a look at user Vivianne Dawn / Ventrixs who add themselves as the CUVA trainer - see - here. As per this, even user has registered since Sep 2018 but only made 3 edits in 2018. As of now the user made only 18 edits in mainspace and little experience in counter vandalism work. I am not sure their experience is suffice to be a CUVA trainer. I will leave it you if you would like to action. Good night Girth. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, thanks for drawing this to my attention - I'll have a look. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-creation of an article

Hi, Girth Summit the article Tewolde Gebremariam has been imediately re-created which is WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature and contains a major copy-paste from the employer's website. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amkgp, yes I saw that. In fairness to them, they've made some efforts to attribute the text, so the copyvio isn't quite so egregious, and the subject may be notable - I haven't checked on that yet. Having already deleted the article one (and nominated another article by the same author to AfD), I thought I'd let another admin take a look at that version, to get a second opinion. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, also the supposed same creator through IP 197.156.122.181 has mentioned the following while contesting CSD I'm one of the employee here in Ethio Arilines, and teweld is my childhood firend at Talk:Tewolde Gebremariam. The diff ~ Amkgp 💬 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Amkgp, groan. Have you asked the original author whether that was them editing while logged out? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You know what is right, do what you want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitbe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yitbe - thanks for stopping by. I don't want to discourage you from editing, and I know that Wikipedia can be a tough environment for new editors. I don't want to discourage anyone who is willing to try to learn our policies and edit within the rules, so can I ask you whether you work for Ethiopian Airlines, and/or know the subjects that you have been writing about? I'm not going to block your account either way, but your answer will affect the advice I give you at this point, so I'd be really grateful if you'd give a clear answer. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"...excessively large, red shoes, oversized pantaloons, mismatched colors, a brightly painted clown face, perhaps shaking an enraged fist into the air and shouting in a sort of squeaky voice."

Do you have any suggestions as to how I should respond to this "lets you and him fight" behavior? [1]

I almost lost my temper when they called me a "dink".[2] Having obviously done extensive "opposition research" by trawling through my editing history, they no doubt knew that this was a pejorative that I would be familiar with and highly offended by. Unless they intended the racial slur (which I doubt) it means nitwit, jerk, nerd, dork, geek, swot, weenie[3] stupid, annoying, contemptible[4] useless, dipshit, fool, idiot, loser, jerk, or asshole.[5][6]

I just want to be left alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I've removed it, and warned the editor about harassment. My personal advice on this one would be to leave it and see if they are prepared to draw a line under it; if they persist, let me know. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I should also note that I missed the 'dink' comment previously - it's not a word I'm familiar with, and didn't jump off the screen at me so apologies for overlooking it before. If I'd seen it at the time I might have acted differently, but I don't imagine you want to reopen that thread. Let's see if they're willing to drop it; if not, they've been warned now. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to try to completely avoid all interactions with them, but they are trying to change basic policies in a rather self-serving way, and I felt that I should oppose the proposal. Please look over Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Addition to WP:HUSH. I will be happy to remove the part where I talk about the other editor if you think I went too far. I naturally have to doubt my own objectivity on this, so please be brutal if I didn't handle the attempt to change policy well. I can take it.

Guy Macon if I'm honest, I'd have missed out the part about the other editor, if I were you. Fine for you to oppose, but look at it like this - I've advised them that their edit was harassment, and they could be blocked if they repeat it; you've now just said that they are exactly the type of person that template was designed for. Without making any comment about the veracity or otherwise of that statement, it personalises the issue, and it could even be interpreted as baiting them to respond improperly. I think that your oppose vote would be more effective without it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Good advice, and most appreciated. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - an improvement, I think. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just an FYI (no admin action required) I have withdrawn from editing the only article where I have interacted with TheMusicExperimental. [7] I do have an interest in health articles, but I just don't have what it takes to deal with the editor behavior that inevitably occurs in any US politics article. I believe that me staying away from that article seems to be a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me when I was a novice Wikipedian! I very much appreciated your help which has encouraged me to continue. 1Muskmelon (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 1Muskmelon, and you're welcome. Drop me a line if you even need a hand. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Yaa sure :-) --1Muskmelon (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to be authorised to use AutoWikiBrowser

Hi Girth Summit. First of all, thanks for the training you've given me in the CVUA so far, I'm learning quite a bit and am really enjoying it. I would like to use AutoWikiBrowser to perform quicker typo fixes and Manual Of Style fixes, however, it requires Administrators approval and was wondering if you'd authorise me? I decided to ask here that on the actual requests page since I hope you'll see past my relatively low edit count and know that I can be trusted and it doesn't look like many Administrators check the requests page. However, if you want me to ask on the requests page that's fine by me. Eyebeller (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eyebeller, no problem with you asking, but I think I would prefer it if you were to apply for permission at the relevant page; I've never used AWB myself, and I'm not familiar with the usual expectations for the permission - that would be better handled by someone with more familiarity I'm afraid. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. Eyebeller (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please audit my recent rollbacks with Huggle?

Hello again. Thanks for granting me the rollback permission again. I have made quite a few rollbacks using Huggle. If you have time, can you please audit some of these rollbacks so I know that I'm doing rollbacking correctly? Thanks. Eyebeller (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, hi - from a very quick spot check, they look fine - you're choosing the relevant option instead of just default vandalism reverting, so the edit sums and warnings seem appropriate. I haven't been through them all, but I'm confident you know what you're doing at this point. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Need Help

User:Girth Summit Hi! May I ask you to see if the book [[8]] is a reliable source? I am using the same with Technical textile, ISBN: 9789385059896; Title: Agro Textiles and Its Applications; Author: Grace Annapoorani; 2018 Imprint: Woodhead Publishing India.Kindly advice. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV, I'm not an expert on the subject matter but, on the face of it, that looks to me like a reasonable source for basic information about textile fibres. The author is apparently an academic in a relevant discipline (Google scholar link), and while the publisher isn't one I've ever heard of, it doesn't look dodgy to me. On the other hand, taking a quick skim through some of the pages, I see some quite bold claims within the book which don't appear to be expanded upon, or backed up by any footnotes - for example, quite early on it baldly says 'jute is the most environmentally friendly fibre', but it doesn't go on to explain exactly what is meant by that, or why the author believes it to be the case. I wouldn't rely on this book on its own to support adding an assertion of that nature to an article, without at least attributing the opinion to the author. Note that I haven't investigated things like reviews or citation ratings - to identify a real heavyweight source, I'd be looking to see how many other scholars have cited it, and/or how it has been reviewed in scholarly journals within the relevant discipline. But yeah, for basic uncontested information this is probably fine. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 12:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks for your immediate response and advice. Warm regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For info, while the book may be an acceptable source, for that Jute claim, certainly not. The whole classification thing that Agrotech is part of is a marketing initiative, by a commercial organisation that is trying to market its services, that wikipedia should not treat as definitive. just a passing comment. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Roxy Appreciate your concern. So it is suitable for the rest of the article. I will not use/try to change the source from that particular section (Agrotech). Thanks and RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not twist my words. I did not say that the book is suitable for the rest of the article. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your assignment order on my CVUA page

Hello again. Thanks for adding a new assignment to my CVUA page. However, I think you added it in the wrong order. Your reply to my previous answer isn't near my previous answer and you added new content above old content. I think you accidentally put the Speedy deletion examples just before the end instead of at the end. If this isn't a mistake I apologise. Eyebeller (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, yep, you're quite right - pasted it into the wrong place, my bad, fixed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2020

Delivered November 2020 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Full protection for the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography page?

Hi, Girth. As you can see here, there is back and forth edit warring over pieces regarding MOS:BIRTHNAME. And it doesn't look like it will stop. Will you full-protect the page to stop the disruption and until things are worked out on the talk page? I'm thinking that it needs at least a week of full protection. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; my thumb did not go where I intended it to. Flyer22 Frozen's revert on this page was 100% correct, and I would have self-reverted as soon as I noticed the error (probably right around now). Again, my apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Full protection is maybe no longer needed, Girth. A new RfC will very likely be started. Maybe just temporarily keep an eye on the page? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)