User talk:CorbieVreccan

Admins watch while you edit. We saw what you did there.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching.

This editor is a Veteran Editor IV and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.

Veteran Editor IV

If you are new here, and feeling angry, please read Tips for the Angry New User before explaining to us how terribly wrong and messed up Wikipedia is. Would you believe, we probably already know? You can also familiarise yourself with Wikipedia culture via these policy links ->
and helpful essays ^^^

If you've been an admin for a while, and are feeling burnt out, take a step back and take some deep breaths, and don't forget to WP:CHILL

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Catholic bishops in the Philippines on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 16:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:James Barry (surgeon) on a "Biographies" 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 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User causing disruption in Catholic topic areas. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catawba language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catawba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No original research

Please add a source on St. Joseph's Indian School that states parents were given information from the school that mislead them prior to their kids sending them those letters. There is a source for the student letters, but otherwise it's original research to add what parents "assumed" about the school, etc. You can't add two different sources together if they both don't mention the letters and misleading information by the school per Wikipedia:No original research.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ideally we need a source from a parent talking about what the recruiters said to them. The quote you put in your edit summary is not the one you removed. The quote in the source was, "Danielle Kucera, associate director of communications and outreach for the school, told CNA she is proud that St. Joseph’s provides a safe environment in which students can learn and be involved in extracurricular activities, and where their parents trust that they are safe." So, we have a p.r./outreach person going out and saying the kids are safe. So far I think that's the best we've got. We can probably do better, though. Or we can reword it. The way you reworded it though made it sound like the kids were the sole informants to their parents, and the reason they were sent there in the first place. That doesn't make sense. The parents had to have been told promotional things in the first place to send their kids there. We have to cover that in some way so the kids aren't blamed, in WP's voice, for being sent there. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Those letters and the statement by the PR team are not related in the sources so you can't use it to make your statement as it's written. The PR statement seems to be a more recent statement as well and it's not clear the time period of when the student letters were forged. It's misleading.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reporters Without Borders on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this IP editors contributions to Indigenous peoples of Mexico

Hi Corbie, I know you are very busy, but if you find a moment, could you please have a look at this IP editor's recent edits to Indigenous peoples of Mexico. They are changing statistics and leaving inflamatory edit summaries.[1] They may be right about the population numbers (?) but I am not sure they are going about this in the right way. I haven't reverted them, nor left a message on their talk page yet. I wanted to run it by you first to get a "temperature read". Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, you can ignore this message, OhnoitsJamie took care of it, and reverted the IPs edits. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Natemup

In what seems to be an increasingly evident trend, I am having repeated issues with User:Natemup, who seems to be unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue about unexplained and highly questionable edits and reverts he has made on Institute Catholique. He has repeatedly either replaced "citation needed" markers with unreliable sources or simply deleted them without explanation. He has also refused to admit or understand why the clearly unreliable source he is citing is indeed unreliable (it literally lifted all of its information that the very Wikipedia article in question!). It's one thing to make an editing mistake or not understand the proper process—I'm certainly been guilty of this many times. But this editor is incredibly confrontational, unwilling to admit any mistakes, and is nearly impossible to engage in any form of meaningful discussion. I have left messages on his talk page as well as tried to engage him on Talk:Institute Catholique. Everywhere, he has been unreasonably argumentative. I know that you have had issues with him, at least based on what I see on his talk page (which also shows a long history of this type of behavior), so I thought it would be helpful if I made you aware of it. I appreciate any help or guidance you can provide. Anwegmann (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Corbie and co. attempted to make something out nothing and got nowhere. The page they were attempting to protect is now in great hands, and the page you and I discussed is also in better shape now (with your help). Feel free to end this.

Corbie will tell you what you want to hear, in any case. natemup (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

we have vandalism by User:Eccekevin, who denies LGBT popes and cardinals in history of Roman-Catholic church. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)