This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:slakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ludovic Lepic - Chaos.jpg slakr's life is currently frolicking with chaos, so his activity and response times to queries will be highly variable.
Leave a message and he will respond whenever he gets a chance— that is, assuming he gets a chance. Cheers =)
zOMG!!! I need urgent assistance!!!1!!banana?kiwi?



Nuvola apps important blue.svg Ideally, please use this link to post new messages at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Comment

Regarding slakr:

Regarding SineBot:

200.83.165.120[edit]

Do not block my IP for no reason. Send a message on the talk page and discuss.

Please revisit[edit]

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Benjil_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_declined.29 as "declined". I think that result is invalid, as in not a valid option in view of the request. I explained myself there. Originally I changed the result myself to "closed without administrative action", which is a valid result in this case, but after a post on my talkpage from an editor I respect very much for many years already, I undid that, and now ask you to make this change. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Thanks for the heads up. I've double checked the action, and you might be right. It could be argued that the close was wrong and what needed to happen was to actually block you for edit warring, even though you haven't violated the three revert rule, because you seem acutely aware of the policy against doing so yet proceeded nonetheless to make multiple reverts. In fact, you were so confident in your understanding of the policy that you'd go so far as to revert my close (which, I might add, is sort of ironic on an edit warring noticeboard), while the other editor was given no significant, direct, standard warning (e.g., {{uw-3rr}}) about the policy against edit warring and thus has benefit of the doubt. Is being blocked a more desirable choice for you, or would you rather take the warning and seek dispute resolution instead of continuing to edit war? We added that option to the {{AN3}} template, by the way, because it happens so frequently: Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked. The way I see it, of course, is that I'm hopefully right in my interpretation of the edit warring policy in that the spirit of it is to block neither of you in this instance, which is why I felt the most appropriate close (for now) was to decline the report. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from now, even if you disagree with it. --slakrtalk / 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You do whatever you see fit, but that closure was incorrect. And I already pointed out there the difference between an editor defending a consensus version without actually violating the 3RR rule and the editor who tries to push through his non-consensus opinion.
But if you are one of those admins who care more bureaucracy than actually helping the project, like many others I have had dealings with before you, or who simply have their own issues, or if perhaps you just happen to disagree with me on the big issues of what is important on Wikipedia, then I suppose blocking me sounds like just the right thing to do.
So do whatever you like, but that closure was wrong. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
For a more in-depth review of the subject, and the role you take in this as opposed to the one you should be taking, please see the above mentioned post on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: I understand you're frustrated that I did not take the action you requested. You made a report that alleged that there was a clear violation of the edit warring policy and/or associated policies (including the three-revert rule) that would warrant an administrator's urgent attention. I, in my opinion, found insufficient wrongdoing from either side, covered by any policy, that would make me comfortable in making a block to prevent further wrongdoing (or justifying any other administrative action) at the time. While it's entirely possible I'm just a big, forgiving, stupid softie when it comes to determining whether or not to block someone, I'm also not the only one who regularly patrols AN3, and if the reverts continue unabated and/or there's a failure to engage in dispute resolution, it's likely someone else will rise to your (and/or the other guy's) expectations for strictness. And yes, it's entirely possible another admin would have had a different, harsher opinion in the first place, but that's simply not how reports are typically closed on AN3. We're volunteers, and we simply have a bunch of reports from a bunch of people to get through. --slakrtalk / 06:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, and I do appreciate the hard and ungrateful work some admins do. And I did have a look at your user contributions to check if you are a serious admin or just an amateur. :)
Still, I have a strong inbuilt sense of justice, in real life I am a student of law, and when I see a mistake, technically speaking, I already feel unhappy. When that mistake also ignores the bigger picture of what is going on in this case, I feel twice wronged.
By the way, did you see my talkpage post? Then you know where I am coming from. I am a long-time editor, an by now have not a bad feeling of what Wikipedia is about and the current trends here.
It is always a fine line dividing between trying to defend an article from tendentious edits, especially if they are sincere (not vandalism), and enforcing your own opinion. May be I got it wrong in this case. In any case, by the advice of EdJohnson on my talkpage, I suggested to the other editor to open an Rfc to see what present consensus is. I think that is the only valid course of action now, and any one-sided attempt to change the article would constitute disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your bot is slaking in it's checks.[edit]

It just signed me although, I'm a long time user and signed already. [1]cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@C678 and Cyberpower678: You signed as C678 despite being signed in as Cyberpower678 (btw, WP:SIGLINK requires a direct link, not a redirect). It doesn't look like the normal edit count checking is broken, though, so I'm guessing there was a transient error in the API on the edit count call, in which case it defaults to assuming you're a noob. You can either update your signature to reflect your actual username or use one of the other opt-out methods listed on its user page if you want to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. --slakrtalk / 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
In which case I think I will leave it be for the time being.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on bot approvals[edit]

Hi Slakr. I'd like your recommendation on how to best handle sending a series of tasks through the bot approval process. I'm currently working on reducing the backlog at WP:TFD/H. In many cases, the templates that are being merged have high transclusion counts and the process of the merge can be handled partially or completely with AWB. The tasks don't take very long to write the regex for and test on my end, so I've been churning them out fairly quickly. I've written two today, for instance.

I'm not quite sure how I should go about bot approvals for these. If I were to submit a BRFA for each task immediately as it were finished, it would probably bludgeon the process to death. I've been told of a past situation where a bot operator received general approval to handle these types of tasks at their discretion, but I have not been around long enough to develop a reputation to allow for such a carte blanche approval. The third option appears to be to sit on these tasks and wait for my existing BRFAs to go through before submitting additional ones, but that makes it very difficult to work through the backlog at any meaningful rate.

Do you have any suggestions on how best to proceed? I'm trying to balance accountability, the limited time of the BAG, and the need to work through this backlog, but I'm not seeing any way forward where one of those doesn't have to give. Is there a fourth option I'm missing? ~ RobTalk 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'd probably get a handful that are approved via the normal route, ensure they work smoothly, and then you have a track record (and good sample size) of demonstrating clue. At that point, you can probably aim for the blanket approval (because it's like, why waste BAG's time if at that point all we're used to doing is rubber stamping trivial variations on the same running theme). The main thing the whole BRFA process is for is sanity checking and keeping people calm. You're basically just saying, "Hey, does anyone have a problem with me making a bunch of these edits automatically? I promise I've done everything I can think of to not screw up and waste everyone's time." And that, realistically, is the main thing people care about: having to fix a fuckup or revert something they simply disagree with. None of the experienced bot developers want to have to explicitly write a bot to fix somebody else's logic holes, and non-coders don't want to feel powerless (or waste their volunteered time) staring down 10,000 mindless rollback clicks and/or sifting through page histories and running a bunch of undos. If you have people's confidence as far as that goes—that people won't be inconvenienced and that a clear and obvious net positive results—that's really what matters most and what you have to demonstrate you're capable of accomplishing (and being trusted to accomplish). --slakrtalk / 07:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for page move:[edit]

There are several mexican telenovela pages that have to be moved .I have tried to speak to Phillip J Fry who blanyantly refused to move them to their original titles.This is because they are not changed in English speaking countries.The only thing changed is the dubbed subtitles.The names remain the same.They are The Stray Cat,Wild at Heart (telenovela),The Color of Passion,The Neighbor (telenovela).Moreso some of the channels in the internationals often change the english translation to their liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talkcontribs) 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To learn, each title is according to the posters and every telenovelas was bent to the English. Nigeria give these telenovelas with subtitles, does not mean that the titles should change. On Youtube you can find many videos of these telenovelas folding into English. The user was blocked by wars of editions and between all this dispute add references where it mentions that "Wild at Heart" was dubbed into English.--Philip J Fry (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The user Philip J Fry has been moving multiple pages without discussion until consensus is reached as I have explained the English titles often change.This has become difficult for the use to understand since he residents in a Spanish speaking country hence he does not experience the difficulty in using the English title.The English Title to my opinion is not supposed to be used in place of the original and the mover has not understood the impact of. this as I have explained it to him but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears and whenever he sends messages I barely comprehend them.Honestly I don't want a move war with a stubborn user.User:Nyanchokanyanchy 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. The language used in the title of the film is generally whatever was used in the film's marketing in the English-speaking world. For example, Au revoir les enfants, which came out under that name in anglophone countries although it is also the original French title. The fact that Au revoir les enfants was released in those countries with English subtitles does not influence the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The titles of the articles: The Stray Cat, Wild at Heart and The Color of Passion. They are already quite a few months so and they do not violate any policy, because you are telenovelas were dubbed into English and the poster, also Nyanchoka began to change posters and titles at all costs trying to impose their point of view, without reaching an agreed. And as I said before, that in Nigeria these telenovelas are issued with subtitles not influence to the titles of the articles to be moved. The user insists on request that the pages be moved, making this kind of destructive issues. Despite the fact that you asked that you please stop or at least read how to use the template, the user continues to ignore my message.--Philip J Fry (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nyanchoka: I understand that you're frustrated with the variability in the English names, and you want the titles, ideally, to be accurate and up-to-date. As EdJohnston (talk · contribs) mentioned, we do have a series of "naming conventions" for things like this, but there can be exceptions, as not every situation is clear (who knows, this might be one of them). The general rule of thumb, however, is that we use English, but above that, we use the name that those who speak English are most likely to know, because that's the language this encyclopedia is targeting and explaining concepts for—those who speak English. "China" is how most English speakers know the country described by the article at China, for example, but can you imagine how difficult it would be to find "China" if the title was in Mandarin? :P That said, a title can be, as Ed pointed out, in French, because English speakers actually know the movie by its French name more than by an English translation of the name. Similarly, you'd see "Schadenfreude," a German word, being left where it is, because that's the word most English speakers know it by. Otherwise, our solution involves inter-language links. You'll notice those on the left side of the page when you view an article, and those tend to actually properly reflect the correct, original name, in the original language (well, that is, if that language has an article and it's been linked here; if not, you could always take it upon yourself to create one).
Still, it's possible even the English version of the title is wrong or disused, so the best place to deal with disputed article titles (i.e., when one user disagrees with another user) is at requested moves (more specifically, the controversial moves section). Warring over the title is never the way to go, as it tends to be even more disruptive than normal edit warring, so I suggest you leave the titles where they are (even if it's not the ideal one) and instead file the requested-move. Actually, it can be even easier, because the person who closes the move will likely even carry out the moves for you, and if it's a lot of pages, it saves you a lot of time and repetition to just let someone else do the work for you. :P
Anyway, follow the directions at Requested Moves (which involve starting a discussion on one or more of the articles' talk pages). From there, you, Philip J Fry (talk · contribs), and even uninvolved editors will come by to help create consensus to determine which title most accurately aligns with our policies, guidelines (including naming conventions), and the manual of style. Keep in mind, there can be situations where no title is agreed upon by everyone, but the page still needs some title—even if it's not the ideal or most accurate one.
--slakrtalk / 07:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that you can still always create redirects if need be (and in situations where there's confusion about which name is most recognized by English speakers). --slakrtalk / 07:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the current titles are well, as well help users who speak English find these pages. For example suppose that Slakr saw "La vecina", but do not know how is your Spanish title, and comes to deduce that if Spanish title would be "The Neighbor" (an example), so would a little more users to find articles on television series in Spanish. Other examples can be seen in the Wikipedia Serbian, that although these programs are in Spanish, alla translate their titles into the language that they speak. As you can see here. In any case if the user does not want this to be so, you can do what you mention Slakr. I don't have any problem in that, what happens is that formerly Nyanchoka did everything backwards, it began to move pages without reaching an agreed.--Philip J Fry (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Philip J Fry: Personally, I couldn't care less. :P The main point of my post is that my talk page isn't the correct venue for discussing the merits of the page names; the article talk pages themselves are. If there's a running theme, a single requested move can help centralize the discussion to avoid a crapton of discussions over a crapton of pages, but regardless, those discussions need to happen somewhere other than here, otherwise the little box at the top of my screen will explode unnecessarily. :P --slakrtalk / 07:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you=[edit]

Thank you for that note of understanding. It is hard to know what to do about an editor who puts an enormous amount of time into Wikipedia, so that his hounding of me looks infrequent - to everyone but me. He comes to AFDs to vote delete where I have given extensive evidence for keeping, deleting citations from articles with false claims that the citations do not support the material. Who would read through all those long articles to see what he is doing. Who would ever have the patience to read through all of the accusations he has posted at ANI to sort out the avalanche of half-truths and untruths? The energy he puts into dogging my every step is remarkable. The slander of me is wearying. And there does appear to be a political motivation - I find Islamism noteworthy, he prefers to edit out material from reliable publications about Islamist violence, and to delete material and articles showing Islamist militants in a negative light. Most likely this reflects a leftist ideology interpreting Islamism as a reaction to Western imperialism and attacks on Muslim lands by Western countries. Since my editing is far above par, this is the only plausible explanation for the fact that he has expressed, multiple times, a desire to drive me off Wikipedia. Deletion of articles and material in support of this goal is not good editing. Moreover, there is an obsessive component to his attacks on me that makes him an uncongenial and destructive editor. The lack of good editing on mryiad articles on useful but uncontroversial topics shows, IMHO, the extent to which the notoriously battleground atmosphere and interminable wikilawyering make Wikipedia aversive, and drives away new editors. Mostly, however, I am hoping that if I refrain from responding and refrain form posting plong legal briefs at ANI, he will forget me and go away. Yesterday, when he aggressively, and for the second time, made dishonest assertions about news articles sourcing an article about an heroic priest running what is by all accounts an exemplary refugee camp in Iraqi Kurdistan - I lost it. I am sorry that I engaged him. It, and the support given by a handful of other editors, only has the effect of encouraging him and helps make Wikipedia a nasty place to work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Current discussion on Drv[edit]

Hello Slakr: Your edits at WP:Forking Content are presently being mentioned on Drv for "Poetry in the 21st century" for this article in case changes might be needed at the WP:Forking Content page. Could you glance at it? MusicAngels (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of verification failed tags on Douglas al-Bazi by E.M.Gregory[edit]

My failed verification tags were removed as "untruthful" by EM Gregory. I have listed below the statements sourced, the diffs where the tags were removed, links to the sources, and the extent of the source content related to the article content in the source that was tagged.

He was tortured and released nine days later. He suffered multiple injuries including two broken vertebrae from his spinal cord, and his face and knees were smashed using a hammer. sourced to Catholic Monitor, Doran, and Cantilero has its tags removed here by E.M.Gregory as "removing MSJapan's untruthful tags." The Catholic Monitor ref says, Douglas knows first-hand the effects of violence. He still has a bullet lodged in his leg and has back problems from being beaten with chains when he was kidnapped in 2006. The Doran ref says "Nearly a decade before in Baghdad, he was kidnapped by Shiite militias and tortured, losing several teeth in the process, which have since been replaced." The Cantilero ref states In 2006, Catholic priest Father Douglas Bazi was taken by Islamists who tortured him until a ransom was paid. The priest had to endure a terrible ordeal in the hands of his abductors who struck his back, broke one of his legs, shot him, and punched his teeth out. none of these sources supports the claim made in the article, and in fact, EMG's reply to "listen to the BBC interview", supports my point in the AfD was that BBC radio program was where it was sourced from in the first place, not the other three sources I tagged.

He was released after a ransom was paid by the church. has its tag removed for Asianews.it here. The source states, Fr Doglas Yousef Al Bazi, the Chaldean parish priest of St Elias in Baghdad, is safe and sound, at home once again. He was released last night after being kidnapped for nine days.. There's a further brief "no comment" from the bishop as well. No ransom is mentioned in this source as stated in the article.

In this diff EMG has now moved the $170,000 ransom statement up to be cited by the same above sources, but claims in the edit summary it's only sourced to Catholic Review. On top of that, nowhere in the ref is $170,000 mentioned.

This is why they were tagged, and there is no reason those tags should have been removed as "untruthful". MSJapan (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • It's right t, where I said it is. Here: [[2]] or , google: 170,000 ransom church bazi. The exact quote, from the Catholic Review is: "Father Doglas Al-Bazi, a Chaldean Catholic parish priest of St. Elias Church in Baghdad, was released Nov. 28 after being held for nine days, AsiaNews reported Nov. 29. Meanwhile, Iraqi Redemptorist Father Bashar Warda said church officials paid a ransom of $170,000 for the priests' release. It was unclear if the two were kidnapped by the same people.

- See more at: http://catholicreview.org/article/play/travel/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq#sthash.ZlKwnawk.dpuf" . E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • No, it isn't correct. You've sourced the ransom amount to a source that does not appear in the article, and cited it in the article to a source in which the information does not appear. The raw URLs will illustrate that. The article citation is http://www.catholicreview.org/article/faith/parish-news/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq. Note it appears in faith/parish-news. The ref you provided here (which yes, does have the information) is http://catholicreview.org/article/play/travel/kidnappers-release-two-chaldean-catholic-priests-in-iraq#sthash.ZlKwnawk.dpuf, which is from play/travel. They are not the same article. MSJapan (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
That is very strange. As far as I am aware, the $170,000. ransom paid by the Church has been there in The Catholic Review article right along. But, I suppose there could exist two links, one missing the final 2 paragraphs of the article. That kind of confusion does happen when articles go live, then undergo revision. I often google keywords or unique phrases when I happen on an article citing something that I cannot find in the source cited. After all, such things do happen (I mean, sources get dropped or scrambled), and I try to assume good faith.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Full protection at Denali[edit]

Do you think full protection is really necessary at Denali? Because it's in the news, the article is getting a lot of attention. Yes, there was an edit war amongst two users, but there's also a lot of constructive editing happening and active, good faith discussion about other, non-contentious improvements to the article. It's a shame to cut that off while the article gets lots of attention; might a stern warning or a block to the two editors who are edit warring stem the damage without preventing other improvements, particularly since both editors have said they'll stop at WP:AN/3RR and are engaging in discussion? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ashill: Yes. The dispute's between more than two users, as evidenced by edit history and, more clearly, the ongoing talk page discussions, and because it's now being politicized, it also falls under the American politics arbitration stuff. It's not being recorded as an arb-enforcement action yet (because it's simple edit warring), but that's probably going to be one of the next courses of action, possibly in addition to WP:1RR restrictions, if edit warring continues over the subject. Once topics have gotten the running theme of being ground-zero for the same set of behaviors, this sort of thing tends to happen, sadly. --slakrtalk / 23:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)