User talk:Dlthewave: Difference between revisions

We are edit warring at the moment. I am in discussion on the talk page and there is not an urgent need to refactor the list at this time. Please stop edit warring. We can come to a conclusion with time and consensus. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly added Lake Roland (Maryland) while providing no reasoning or sourcing that describes it as "DC Area". I've tried to engage on the talk page but no explanation for its inclusion has been provided. –dlthewave ☎ 05:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the only two editors. It is not an emergency. Have a look at your recent contributions - I just looked at mine and it is a lot of reverting. This is not how we build the encyclopedia. It is rather extreme for you to go through articles I started and with no discussion begin refactoring them by making wholesale changes to suit your preferences. We have talk pages. Even though we are discussing the issues you are racing to make changes on the articles to suit your opinions. This is not how things are done. We can work together. Lightburst (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a number of your edits because they were unsourced or did not appear to reflect the list title. I'm open to discussing these items. Why have you reverted? What are your preferences? –dlthewave ☎ 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onel's Arizona articles.

I'd really reconsider a ton of individual nominations here. Have a chat with Onel. If there is merit to the deletions, He'll listen and they can just be CSDed, but I'm noticing for example that Nommel is listed as a populated place in the USGS database,[1] so these might be places that were previously populated but are not any more. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Looking through Onel's talk page and AfD comments, he doesn't seem particularly open to the idea that these places merit deletion, and unfortunately he may have retired out of frustration due to a string of similar deletions. I feel that AfD is the most appropriate route, however a batch nomination will probably be a better way to go in the future.

The problem with USGS and similar databases is that they label all sorts of places as "populated". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington has examples of railroad junctions at the Hanford Site which were named after random office workers and are now erroneously listed as "populated places". In any case, even if they are populated, none of these places have received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GNIS database has a lot of mistakes, especially in Arizona. Onel just GIGOed the whole thing but refused to admit he was wrong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parsons Grove, Arizona and others, insisting that it must say "is a populated place" despite the obvious lack of people living there now.

Dlthewave, thanks for helping take this on. Sorry that bulk AFD didn't work, I was thinking more of grouping by type, especially after doing our own checks on them. First could be one for all the crossings; SportingFlyer and I started a list at User:SportingFlyer/Arizona placenames cleanup. It would also be a good idea to get access to newspapers.com to search for sources: see links at User_talk:SportingFlyer#Newspaper.com_access. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of grouping the crossings, places, etc. I have a busy couple of days coming up but I'll work with you guys before nominating any more.

I've applied for newspapers.com access as well. Looks like they have a "clipping" feature that lets you share specific articles publicly, this would be a good way to allow people without access to review the sources. Thanks for all of your work in this area. –dlthewave ☎ 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for newspapers.com, you might find chroniclingamerica is also a good resource, I'd recommend the advanced search and narrowing it by state.----Pontificalibus 16:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EverlyWell

:( Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Thanks for the alert. Just wanted to make sure you got it too! Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 ==[[EverlyWell]]==
 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEverlyWell_%282nd_nomination%29&type=revision&diff=938853296&oldid=938852358 :(] [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
+{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text  = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''
+You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic.
+For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
+}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> Thanks for the alert. Just wanted to make sure you got it too! [[User:Jweiss11|Jweiss11]] ([[User talk:Jweiss11|talk]]) 06:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)