User talk:Uses x

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Committed identity: 2972a6e9f64053171511144c77c97956a101f5091e08f41df40641fb225ff3235269b80bba3c1f149302d59a2d4da3e6fedfe9c4f9b501bd0a8070b99fd7d17e is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Tech News: 2021-21

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The Wikimedia movement has been using IRC on a network called Freenode. There have been changes around who is in control of the network. The Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts have decided to move to the new Libera Chat network instead. This is not a formal decision for the movement to move all channels but most Wikimedia IRC channels will probably leave Freenode. There is a migration guide and ongoing Wikimedia discussions about this.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 May. It will be on all wikis from 27 May (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

– bradv🍁 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kees de Jager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Kees de Jager

On 29 May 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kees de Jager, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(Diff, as I know I'm awarding this to myself)

Tech News: 2021-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• There was an issue on the Vector skin with the text size of categories and notices under the page title. It was fixed last Monday. [1]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for John Hodge (engineer)

On 2 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Hodge (engineer), which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for IRIS Kharg

On 2 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article IRIS Kharg, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Dushman

On 7 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Dushman, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 June. It will be on all wikis from 10 June (calendar).

Future changes

• The Wikimedia movement uses Phabricator for technical tasks. This is where we collect technical suggestions, bugs and what developers are working on. The company behind Phabricator will stop working on it. This will not change anything for the Wikimedia movement now. It could lead to changes in the future. [2][3][4]
• Searching on Wikipedia will find more results in some languages. This is mainly true for when those who search do not use the correct diacritics because they are not seen as necessary in that language. For example searching for Bedusz doesn't find Będusz on German Wikipedia. The character ę isn't used in German so many would write e instead. This will work better in the future in some languages. [5]
• The CSRF token parameters in the action API were changed in 2014. The old parameters from before 2014 will stop working soon. This can affect bots, gadgets and user scripts that still use the old parameters. [6][7]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for ANOM sting operation

On 8 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article ANOM sting operation, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Logged-in users on the mobile web can choose to use the advanced mobile mode. They now see categories in a similar way as users on desktop do. This means that some gadgets that have just been for desktop users could work for users of the mobile site too. If your wiki has such gadgets you could decide to turn them on for the mobile site too. Some gadgets probably need to be fixed to look good on mobile. [8]
• Language links on Wikidata now works for multilingual Wikisource. [9]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• In the future we can't show the IP of unregistered editors to everyone. This is because privacy regulations and norms have changed. There is now a rough draft of how showing the IP to those who need to see it could work.
• German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [10]
• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 28 June. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [11][12]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The otrs-member group name is now vrt-permissions. This could affect abuse filters. [13]

Problems

• You will be able to read but not edit German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC. [14]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 June. It will be on all wikis from 24 June (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Wikis with the Growth features now can configure Growth features directly on their wiki. This uses the new special page Special:EditGrowthConfig. [15]
• Wikisources have a new OCR tool. If you don't want to see the "extract text" button on Wikisource you can add .ext-wikisource-ExtractTextWidget { display: none; } to your common.css page. [16]

Problems

• You will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia wikis for a few minutes on 29 June. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. [17][18]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 June. It will be on all wikis from 1 July (calendar).

Future changes

• Threshold for stub link formatting, thumbnail size and auto-number headings can be set in preferences. They are expensive to maintain and few editors use them. The developers are planning to remove them. Removing them will make pages load faster. You can read more and give feedback.
• A toolbar will be added to the Reply tool's wikitext source mode. This will make it easier to link to pages and to ping other users. [19][20]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

• The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 19 July.

Recent changes

• AutoWikiBrowser is a tool to make repetitive tasks easier. It now uses JSON. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON and Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Config. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Version has moved to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/VersionJSON. The tool will eventually be configured on the wiki so that you don't have to wait until the new version to add templates or regular expression fixes. [21]

Problems

• InternetArchiveBot helps saving online sources on some wikis. It adds them to Wayback Machine and links to them there. This is so they don't disappear if the page that was linked to is removed. It currently has a problem with linking to the wrong date when it moves pages from archive.is to web.archive.org. [22]

Changes later this week

• The tool to find, add and remove templates will be updated. This is to make it easier to find and use the right templates. It will come to the first wikis on 7 July. It will come to more wikis later this year. [23][24]
• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

• Some Wikimedia wikis use Flagged Revisions or pending changes. It hides edits from new and unregistered accounts for readers until they have been patrolled. The auto review action in Flagged Revisions will no longer be logged. All old logs of auto-review will be removed. This is because it creates a lot of logs that are not very useful. [25]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Partial block from 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. But it's not just the edit warring. You need to familiarize yourself with what vandalism is not, because calling a good faith edit vandalism is a personal attack. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Uses x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Complete details below. I was the first to be reverted, I was the first to have 3 reverts against me, I was the one who was insulted and attacked. I stopped reverting the edits after other editors agreed I need to seek consensus for the future, and went towards improving the article after that. Meaningless campaign statements "he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" don't belong in the list of candidates, and there's precedent to not include realtime election info beyond results (take a look at my user page. I'm well aware of the rules around editing current events). As for the "vandalism" revert, agree with you; I didn't check the edit history and without trying to remember the details of it I it was someone trying to advertise a candidate (it's a current election on a page with thousands of views a day) so I immediately reverted it. If I were targeting that editor I would've used undo or RedWarn - I edited it from the page itself without looking at the history. I would like an uninvolved admin to weigh in on this, as I know El_C watches the relevant editor's talk page, and so, is involved in this.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''Complete details below. I was the first to be reverted, I was the first to have 3 reverts against me, I was the one who was insulted and attacked. I stopped reverting the edits after other editors agreed I need to seek consensus for the future, and went towards improving the article after that. Meaningless campaign statements "he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" don't belong in the list of candidates, and there's precedent to not include realtime election info beyond results (take a look at my user page. I'm well aware of the rules around editing current events). As for the "vandalism" revert, agree with you; I didn't check the edit history and without trying to remember the details of it I it was someone trying to advertise a candidate (it's a current election on a page with thousands of views a day) so I immediately reverted it. If I were targeting that editor I would've used undo or RedWarn - I edited it from the page itself without looking at the history. I would like an uninvolved admin to weigh in on this, as I know El_C watches the relevant editor's talk page, and so, is involved in this.'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''Complete details below. I was the first to be reverted, I was the first to have 3 reverts against me, I was the one who was insulted and attacked. I stopped reverting the edits after other editors agreed I need to seek consensus for the future, and went towards improving the article after that. Meaningless campaign statements "he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" don't belong in the list of candidates, and there's precedent to not include realtime election info beyond results (take a look at my user page. I'm well aware of the rules around editing current events). As for the "vandalism" revert, agree with you; I didn't check the edit history and without trying to remember the details of it I it was someone trying to advertise a candidate (it's a current election on a page with thousands of views a day) so I immediately reverted it. If I were targeting that editor I would've used undo or RedWarn - I edited it from the page itself without looking at the history. I would like an uninvolved admin to weigh in on this, as I know El_C watches the relevant editor's talk page, and so, is involved in this.'' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''Complete details below. I was the first to be reverted, I was the first to have 3 reverts against me, I was the one who was insulted and attacked. I stopped reverting the edits after other editors agreed I need to seek consensus for the future, and went towards improving the article after that. Meaningless campaign statements "he would be throwing the kitchen" at his campaign" don't belong in the list of candidates, and there's precedent to not include realtime election info beyond results (take a look at my user page. I'm well aware of the rules around editing current events). As for the "vandalism" revert, agree with you; I didn't check the edit history and without trying to remember the details of it I it was someone trying to advertise a candidate (it's a current election on a page with thousands of views a day) so I immediately reverted it. If I were targeting that editor I would've used undo or RedWarn - I edited it from the page itself without looking at the history. I would like an uninvolved admin to weigh in on this, as I know El_C watches the relevant editor's talk page, and so, is involved in this.'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is a very simple matter and I shouldn't have had to get to this point because I wanted to remove two citations and prevent WP:OVERCITE, but here it is. The issue isn't with keeping the citations themselves, but the constant reversions when I'm attempting to improve the article; I had no doubt that this will continue into the future if I left this alone.

This began with the design of the WP:VisualEditor in which it removes spaces before the pipes (|) in citations, where there's no rule to have the spaces, after which the user pinged me in the edit summary (Diff) "restore spaces before cite parameters to improve usability. @User:Uses x, please stop removing them". I engaged with the user on their talk page (Diff), explaining it was a feature of the VisualEditor, and later stated that it is not a rule and so I'm not required to scrub through the source to correct that. That matter seems to now be resolved with a request from the editor stating "but please can you try to avoid it in future".

After that, I tried making edits to the article, as I've regularly done for the past 3 months, to improve the citation work of the article; I removed an opinion piece which makes a passing mention of the information that's covered in-depth in the other citation, and another from an old article which states the candidate is expected to be elected which was used to reference text confirming their selection. (I now realise this had a small bit of information stating they had run before, covered in multiple other citations. I later replaced that with a citation already in the article instead - reverted). That entire edit was reverted by the user, without leaving me any kind of talk page message or seeking any kind of consensus. (Diff)

I then left a second comment on the user's talk page, stating the above. Among the replies from the editor were I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others., and It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you .... (Discussion). I couldn't seek resolution on this matter.

I again tried to make the changes again, to appease the editor instead replacing the citation with another in the article (Diff) as apparently multiple citations are needed to say "yes, the candidate is running", which is stated in near every article anyway - reverted. I tried removing the opinion piece again after I confirmed it doesn't back up information that's not already stated elsewhere - reverted. (Diff)

Through all this, I sought discussion on their talk page, and the talk page of the article. (Diff). They did not leave me any message throughout any of the reverts that wasn't a reply to those. After they continued the reverts, I left a 3 edit revert warning on their talk page (after 6 reverts) and they still continued the reverts. (Discussion)

Their entire reasoning for keeping one article is because a minor candidate said they'd be "throwing the kitchen" at their campaign [26] (Comment saying this was the reasoning) was apparently was essential to add after this issue came about and apparently couldn't have been added after I made my changes, and because there might be useful information in the other (there's not). They also suggested they can be removed later once the flurry of media coverage has subsided, when there's very little media coverage (it's a by-election), and the articles I tried to remove are outdated and contain no other useful information.

Regards, Uses x (leave me a message) 23:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Uses x, I am very much uninvolved, both with the article and the disputants (you two). It doesn't matter if BHG's talk page is on my (+100,000) watchlist —yours is too, btw— but at the event, I haven't used my watchlist in many months now. I happened on your dispute by happenstance. Anyway, the WP:3RR bright line rule is set at 4 (which you have reached and BHG did not), not 3. I'm sorry to say, but when you issue someone the uw-3rr warning, you are expected know about, well, 3rr. In any case, I recommend you review WP:GAB, because, in my view, your unblock request falters in a number of ways (not least of which being its length). Best not to expend time and energy for naught. El_C 23:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C I have 6 messages in my email inbox informing me of direct reverts by BHG. In most of her edits, BHG made manual reverts. They're not undos, but they revert what I added. Please re-count this figure. Uses x (leave me a message) 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I miscounted (didn't scroll down enough — you two edited a lot today!). So, that's 7 reverts for you and 6 for her. Not good. But, again, it isn't just about breaking 3RR. For example, when BHG pointed out WP:NOTVAND to you in response to your vandalism accusation (again, a personal attack), you responded with fine. I don't like that. Too much WP:BATTLEGROUND for me. El_C 00:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I will now have to waste time going back to it, and identifying that issue. I wish you would stop making more work for others., and It's not me that's making a problem. The problem is you ...}. As well as that, I only began the large amount of reverts after I had already sought discussion on their talk page and in the article talk page. So, we both violated 3RR, we both made "personal attacks", so where's BHG's topic ban? Uses x (leave me a message) 00:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C Seriously, please make that topic ban. She's now adding odds from gambling companies to the article. Most of my contributions on Wikipedia are on current events, I know what I was doing. Uses x (leave me a message) 00:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uses x, it's a partial block (WP:PB), not a topic ban (WP:TBAN). You can still use the article talk page. About "the problem is you": it may be uncivil, but I'm not sure it really rises to the level of a personal attack outright (also, there's no diff, so I don't know how that passage continues beyond your ellipsis).

Anyway, I'm not gonna block BHG now, because now that the edit war is done, it'd be punitive rather than preventative, per WP:NOTPUNITIVE (though from your standpoint, I can understand why you'd want that to happen for the sakes of parity).

The thing about you seeking to have this partial block lifted is that there's no indication the edit warring wouldn't resume if that were to happen. Which really is the alpha and omega of GAB. That said, any admin should feel free to lift/adjust my block as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Uses x, that's a content matter which you may raise on the article talk page, or maybe WP:RSN. El_C 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C Thank you. I think we've all wasted enough time on this as is, so I'll leave the project on that; if an editor is effectively advertising a gambling company in the lead of the article, putting campaign material for a candidate where it doesn't belong, and being the first to start any reverts and incivility, and your first thought isn't "this needs to be stopped" with you reverting them yourself, please delete and revdel:

• User:Uses x and edits where possible.
• User:Uses x/To do and edits
• This identity commitment

I can confirm that, yes, in a week or beyond I would remove those gambling odds and that campaign material. On that basis, please issue me a sitewide indefinite ban. Uses x (leave me a message) 01:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)