User talk:Scorpions13256/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Scorpions13256, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Category:Kidnapped South African Children, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —swpb^T 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 excludeFromListingLock: Boolean = false,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.

Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Scorpions13256. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! $Salvio$ 09:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Scorpions13256. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Kidnapped South African Children

A tag has been placed on Category:Kidnapped South African Children requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^T 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro massacre

Hello Scorpions13256. Thank you for your interest in the above referenced article. However, I think that your recent edit may be in error. Murder is a legal term, different from "death" or "killing". There were several legal proceedings, concerning these events, which did not return a verdict of murder. Unquestionably there were killings, but specifically not murders. I have been attempting to eliminate that term from the article (except from quotes, which are entitled to their POV) because it is both legally unsupported, and represents a perspective which fails the neutrality test. There are several categories (not just the one you recently re-inserted) which must be corrected. If there is not a category for "Filmed Killings", then "filmed Murders" can not be substituted as a close second. The category "filmed murders" should (in that case) be deleted from the list. If you disagree with this logic, I would welcome your comments. Gulbenk (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll rename the category.Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Would it be possible to enlist your help with the other "murder" categories... if that isn't asking too much. Gulbenk (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I love editing categories. They make up 95% of my edits. I'll make the "filmed executions" category a subcategory of the "filmed killings" category I just created.Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scorpions13256. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:James Coburn (criminal)

Hello, Scorpions13256. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James Coburn".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 14:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing categories

One small problem - there is no edit summary as to why you are removing categories - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choerophryne_amomani&curid=28270735&action=history - even if it is so obvious to you as to why - it would be useful to see a reason logged somewhere JarrahTree 04:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The categories were removed, because they were redundant.Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is redundant about the category you were removing ? - it is an implicit part of total category structure in all naming of animals etc ? JarrahTree 04:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more specific category already existed. Two of the categories were essentially saying the same thing. However, one was more specific than the other, so it got to stay. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

whoa - more specific - there was nothing about frogs at all - conflating categories is something which category maintenance is not about - as to what stays or goes requires a better explanation - JarrahTree 04:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

categories are not created for a one size fits all notion at all - vertebrates might feel like a good handle - but in some cases - species specific category trees are as important JarrahTree 04:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

depopulating categories without a very good reason does leave the rest of the related category trees in a very strange space - why remove described frogs - you have a whole range of tetrapods to evacuate - I suspect someone with an admin status and less negotiable stance than I have wanting to have a less amiable conversation about conflating things to vertebrates only JarrahTree 04:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a different reason for removing categories like "Frogs described in CENTURY" from articles, namely that the "described in CENTURY" categories are supposed to be container categories for the lower level "described in DECADE" and "described in YEAR" categories. Unfortunately, only some of the "Xs described in CENTURY" categories have {{container category}}, although "Animals described in CENTURY" categories, such as Category:Animals described in the 19th century, are correctly labelled. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I have got it - thanks for going to the trouble to explain JarrahTree 09:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Black and White films

Hi, got your message, will do. Keep up the great work, but don't work too hard. Peace! Koplimek (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa described in categories

Hi, although these categories are historically named "described in YEAR", actually they refer to the year in which the scientific name of the species was first validly published. Many species were described in print years before the scientific name was published. So when an article is at the common name, the convention is to put the "described in YEAR" category on the scientific name redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where I can find that information? Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've since realized that the convention seems to vary by the group of organisms. It seems well established for plants and spiders if you look at the actual categories (e.g. Category:Plants described in 1753), but not for fish (e.g. Category:Fish described in 1856). So I was over-generalizing based on my editing experience. Maybe this needs to be discussed outside these particular WikiProjects, although attempts to discuss things at WT:WikiProject Tree of Life don't seem to attract many editors these days. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category described in year template

Hi, when you create categories for "taxa described in year", please use {{Category described in year}}, rather than directly adding categories and navigation templates. This ensures consistency across such categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Could you tell me a step by step process? Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on my talk page. Sorry that it wasn't clear to you; I should have linked to an example page. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mites described in 1959 has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mites described in 1959, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scorpions13256. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I have reset the timer on your RfA because you have failed to transclude it, therefore it has not been visible to anyone. Before you do transclude, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles requiring parent categories

Could you point me to the relevant policy that you says enforces the inclusion of generic parent categories as well as all the subcategories? Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I misspoke a little bit. This rule applies to films and living people only. It could apply to more situations, but this is all I can think of right now. Here is a link to the rule. It is in the form of a banner though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_films Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that banner on the Category:Venezuelan films category page, though, do you? Kingsif (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it either. The user that put them up did not put it up for every country (Colombia has it though). I can only presume that this happened, because there just weren't enough films with their own articles at the time, and the editor may have simply not had enough time. I have been told that this is the best thing to do by other editors though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this has a purpose for keeping track of WikiProject Film articles, namely the ones that will need tagging with country taskforces on the talkpage (one central category easier to keep track of than all the subcategories, for editors manually tagging). There aren't enough Venezuelan film subcategories for this to be an issue, and until the Venezuelan film parameter is added to a talkpage template, there's no need, either. Perhaps ask in the Film project if you're unsure. Kingsif (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT symbols

Re your revert of 02:41, 13 July 2020 edit: did you chuckle when you read the summary? "could not have created that flag in 2016 because the butch flag that they had used in their design was created in 2017 by tumblr blogger". Glorious, isn't it? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. It saddens me how desperate some people are to vandalize Wikipedia. You should also see that revert I made on that Indian politician. It was equally funny.

Where? I wanna see. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's acutally on Raja Pervaiz Ashraf's page. You can check the reversion history. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trout!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First spider description date

Hi, if you're not aware of it, see the note at Category:Spiders described in 1757. Articles tend to follow the source, and the World Spider Catalog always uses "Clerck, 1757" although other sources use "Clerck, 1758". So Category:Spiders described in 1757 can all be put in Category:Taxa named by Carl Alexander Clerck but (as I see you noticed) Category:Spiders described in 1758 need to be checked. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put all of Category:Spiders described in 1757 in Category:Taxa named by Carl Alexander Clerck. I put some of the spiders from Category:Spiders described in 1758 there as well. Thank you for letting me know. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parent categories

I just saw this edit of yours, in which you added a category which is actually a parent category of another category that is already present. Per WP:DUPCAT we don't usually do this. Why would this be an exception? Debresser (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason why I added that parent category is because there is a template on the British Films category page that states that all British films need to be included in this category. This includes films found in the subcategories. I wouldn't normally do this, but the template's presence indicates that this is an exception to WP:DUPCAT. Here is a link to the category page Category:British films. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian_Unemployed_Workers Union

Per WP:PRIMARY, you need references from secondary reliable sources regarding that criticism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: My apologies. I guess I did not interpret that rule thoroughly enough. Thank you for letting me know about my mistake. I'll do better investigating next time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could see where the hostile edit summaries might prejudice one to the edits, but any Youtube or Twitter references bear additional scrutiny. They're not always inappropriate, but in this case, good example of primary sourcing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wiki Project Award

Hey Scorpion!, I'm here safe and sound. Just took time off during the last few months. Thanks much for that Award. All My Best! Koplimek (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa named by categories

"Apple" was not given this name by Moritz Balthasar Borkhausen. Malus domestica is the name he published. So I think that all the "Taxa named by AUTHOR" categories should be placed on the scientific name title, whether an article or a redirect. We do this for "Plants described in YEAR" categories; see, as just one example, Cocos nucifera. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Sorry I didn't realize that sooner. I'll work on that as soon as school ends. I haven't been overly disruptive, have I? Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I just think it's better to be consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm working on it right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Film categories

Instead of copying a film from one cat to another, add the child category (in this case, Category:1993 anime films) to the parent cat (in this case, Category:1993 films). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.@Nihonjoe: I had already reverted most of the edits. However, the Japanese films and 1993 films categories have a template that says "for convenience, all Japanese/1993 films should be included in this category. This includes all films that can also be found in the subcategories." Was I still wrong to not revert that particular edit? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a film is in Category:1993 television films, it should not be placed into Category:1993 films as the category Category:1993 television films is already in Category:1993 films. It adds unnecessary category clutter to the bottom of the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree with you, but if you click on the category, there is a template that specifically calls for editors to do this. In "1993 films " it says "for convenience, all 1993 films should be included in this category. This includes all 1993 films that can also be found in the subcategories." "1993 television films" is one of those categories. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That caveat makes no sense, so I agree it should be discussed. I can't think of a valid reason for exempting a small section of articles from a site-wide categorization rule. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start an RFC? I'm not too familiar with how to start an RFC, so I'll have to do some reading. Again, I'll stop with this category editing for now until this issue is resolved. Thank you. I always thought this categorization made no sense. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...got your message, but I've been quiet for a while this evening and only now just got around to responding. For what it's worth, an RFC might not go amiss, but this is a longstanding rule (as long as I can remember.) I might ask around at WP:FILM first and see what's up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization reads: It has been decided by long standing consensus, that these four categories of films (Category:YYYY films, Category:XXXX films, Category:XXXX-language films, Category:XXXX studio films) are non-diffusing parent categories. The most important reasons given for this have been: their use in incategory searching, their use in the related changes function, and in relation to the category intersection proposal. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if that's the way people want to do it. It still seems to only serve confusion when an exception is made for a tiny segment of articles. Guidelines should be widely applicable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everyone for their help. Because this is a longstanding rule, I do not see any reason to hold an RFC just yet. I have decided to continue with my category editing once again but at a slower rate to prevent too many of my edits from showing up in people's watchlists (unrelated). Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Liberalism

I re-edited with longer explanations. It seems that a huge amount of Malthusian material was in there, although Malthus was not a classical liberal. There seems to be a humongous reliance on Mills, who is not an economic historian. His book actually is an economic policy prescription. Malthus was a classical economist, but not a classical liberal. He came out in favor of the Corn Laws, the repeal of which was the most important classical liberal policy in the UK in the first half of the 19th Century. Also, classical liberals did not believe in his dire predictions about population outstripping the world's ability to feed everyone. Also, the UK was not pursuing laissez-faire during the Irish Famine; just the opposite. Part of the reason Cobden and Bright fought to repeal the Corn Laws was to help the suffering Irish and lower the price of food throughout the Kingdom.

Hi there. First of all, I am a bit tired right now. I'm getting ready to go to bed. Forgive me if I can't process how you've changed the article. First of all, thanks for trying to build an encyclopedia. However, I would not recommend deleting content from articles like you just did. We usually do not delete large amounts of information from articles without consensus. If I were you, I would undo all of your edits, put all that stuff back, and start a discussion about your concerns on the article's talk page. Many editors will object to what you just did. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on dispute resolution, verifiability and content removal in the meantime. I'm not reverting anymore of your edits because I think there is a change you might have actually removed misleading information. Classical Liberalism isn't something I'm informed about. Just be sure to write an edit summary when making future edits. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

Your request has been Done, please fix any necessary links and do other post move cleanups if necessary. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 08:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cleveland School fire (South Carolina)

Hello! Your submission of Cleveland School fire (South Carolina) 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) 22:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too

Because you say on your user page tha you haven't received any barnstars yet, let this be the first of many

	A couple of my puppies for you
	For all your efforts at combatting vandalism JW 1961 Talk 19:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Yeah, I was just clarifying as to not go crazy over nothing. It's not like some who tell you to "shut up, stop editing, and worship them." These are also the same people who say that Wikifun is only for experienced editors and new users have to be kicked. Firestar464 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cleveland School fire

On 30 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cleveland School fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Cleveland School fire, the deadliest in South Carolina history, took place on the day the school was to close for good? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cleveland School fire), 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.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of missing articles

I noticed you've been doing a lot of work on the list of missing school articles. In regard your edit summaries, it would be much more helpful if you'd tell the community why you're removing entries rather than that you are removing entries; after all, that's self evident. Does the article exist, is it a duplicate within the list, or is it a hoax? Thanks for cleaning it up. Not a lot of maintenance goes on in the school project's project pages. 174.212.222.56 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the message, and I wish you all other editors the same! Sc2353 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you can help

I saw a post you made at User talk:Firestar464 a while back. I'm afraid they remain on the same track (see my own posts, and in fact lots of others' posts, lower on the page) and I fear there will be tears if their efforts aren't more decisively redirected. I'm not sure I have the patience but I suspect you may. E Eng 06:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I do believe that I have the patience to help out, but I do not have the competence or experience to help out at this time. I only started working in the administrative areas this summer. I'm still not fully informed about things like speedy deletion and username violations. I think the best thing to do is have him join the Counter-Vandalism Academy. I've been checking his contributions since we first interacted with each other, and I am very worried. He removed a comment on my talk page too. In my opinion, having an experienced editor inform him of most policies related to vandalism will curb a lot of his mistakes. I do not have the competence to mentor him myself though. I hope everything works out in the end. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my idea was less that you would mentor him on how to do new things, and more that you could just gently steer him away from the things he's doing now so he can find something else to do, though as I read your comment I gather you think he's likely to need mentorship on anything new, too. Iridescent, you know everyone -- can you suggest someone to help this editor (taking into account Scorpion's conjecture here.)? E Eng 05:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Cullen328 and Valereee are three people off the top of my head who have a decent track record of coaxing people back onto the straight and narrow. In my experience this is usually one of the rare situations where being an admin actually is desirable, as "I'm here to help you but if you don't follow the rules, I'll block you myself" should be a credible threat.

As every trade union, political party and religious cult knows, "like recruits like" is hardwired into the human brain. People instinctively lash out at "I am an admin and I'm telling you that you need to follow this apparently bizarre rule", but are typically much more receptive to "as a fellow horse owner/student of Mexican porcelain/Wallonian nationalist, allow me to explain why you need to follow this rule even though it might appear bizarre to you". (This is particularly true on Wikipedia since by its nature it attracts a higher than usual proportion of people on the spectrum who sometimes find it difficult to understand apparently-arbitrary social norms, and who are on Wikipedia in the first place precisely because they're under the mistaken impression that this is an environment in which social rules don't apply.) If you want to get through to an editor without resorting to "I don't care if you agree, these are the rules and you're going to follow them" (which is admittedly sometimes necessary, and I've done my share of it myself), the best thing to do is to look at that editor's interests (either from their userpage or their contribution history), and try to think of someone else with similar interests whom you know to be fairly sensible. ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Iri. Ugh, a look at the talk and just a quick one at recent edits, which includes this series of edits which is incredibly concerning...I'm not sure this is a simple case of CIR in one area so please don't edit there for now. It honestly looks like every area. Is there anything they're showing consistent competence at? Because the complaints on their talk are for a variety of types of edits. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Valereee. I was just going to bring up his recent removal of content, but I see you have already done that. I found it concerning too. Part of me wonders if I really am the best person to help him out. I'm autistic myself, and he reminds me of myself when I was younger (I am 24). We are also both very interested in combatting vandalism and reporting sockpuppets. However, I do not think I have the time and knowledge necessary to do so. I have suspected serious CIR issues since I first interacted with him. Do you think WP:CVSCHOOL will help him out? I was really hoping that this would help him out. However, I now see that he is removing content from talk pages despite being told not to do this. I am now unsure as to whether or not this will be effective for him. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unaware of any areas where he is showing consistent competence. He has not done much content creation. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CV school or anything like it would help simply by providing some structured learning, but a key issue is getting someone to take the person on when there are unrelated clear competency issues. The only trainer showing availability is Cassiopeia.

I found a similarly spectacular edit on fr.wiki -- an entire section of Paul Cezanne removed for unencyclopedic language. Which it may have been, but jeez. That was in September, and I'm really wondering if all removals need to be checked.

Maybe a clear rule for now: no removing anything from anywhere -- not tags, not content, not posts -- except in cases of blatant and obvious vandalism, while we work on establishing what FS both enjoys and can become good at? —valereee (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good rule. However, I worry that this will lead to new problems that we were previously unaware of (PythonSwarm). Yes, I do agree that all of his removal of content needs to be checked. I have been considering doing that myself for the past few days. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this editor's talk page and that was a sad experience. Then, I looked at their changes to their most edited articles, which consisted almost entirely of removing large chunks of text as unreferenced or OR. I saw no efforts to add sources to verify content but rather a slashing style of editing that leaves articles chopped up and in poorer condition. In History of Russia, for example, they removed a properly attributed quotation from Alexander Rabinowitch that concisely summarized the failures of the Czarist government during World War I, with the edit summary WP:UNDUE. I see this editor as a net negative to the project, and I cannot imagine what I could say to them that would change that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Duel at Silver Creek

I have been considering your request for revision deletion in the article The Duel at Silver Creek. The start version for the request you made was this edit, when a plot section was added. Was this plot section a copyvio, because it remains in the article and the material you removed in this edit seems innocuous? So could you clarify the position as I am puzzled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Sorry. I must have tagged it incorrectly. I was using the script for the first time, and I was repeatedly tagging the page incorrectly. I thought I finally got it right, but I guess I was mistaken. There was nothing wrong with the plot. The only problem was with the content I removed. Thanks for asking though. I am absolutely certain that I got it right on another page though. I'll do better next time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this further, I deduce that the other site has copied Wikipedia. The phrase in our article "character who was good all throughout the movie" got modified on 9 November 2014 to remove the word "all", which demonstrates that the Wikipedia article existed before the "Quotes" page, which didn't have the word "all". Also, if you right-click the page and select "view page info" it states that the referring URL is Wikipedia. Interesting! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I am so sorry if I wasted your time. Another administrator even warned me about this being a possibility, but I was certain that I was right. I'll add the content back as soon as possible if you haven't done it yourself. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about my time, because I found it an interesting investigation, and don't let me put you off from asking for revision deletions again in the future, because I am relatively new at this and may be wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you so much for quickly reverting the vandalism on my talk page. :) Ashley yoursmile! 07:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Burke

Is a serial pest and sex offender, the allegations are well founded and should be in the article. Also just because I'm an IP editor does not mean I'm a vandal stop editing in bad faith. --120.22.233.191 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't apply enough scrutiny to your edits. I understand your frustrations. However, you need a secondary source that says he assaulted those women if you want your information in the article. None of the sources in the article seem to indicate that it has been confirmed that he was guilty. See WP:RGW for more information. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

In the media: Taking it sleazy

Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]