User talk:Tcamfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Disambiguation link notification for August 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie Bit My Finger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rounding[edit]

Thanks for your message. I think that two significant digits is certainly sufficient in most cases, and overkill in some cases. I would shoot for a rounded figure on each article that only needs to be done about once a month, so that you can say: "as of December 2015, it has been viewed more than x times", and then update in January. All of this, of course, is just a rule of thumb, but I do not think it helps the reader to update from 1.42 to 1.43. All the best, and happy holidays! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Let It Go (Disney Song)[edit]

I undid this edit because your change is blatantly contradicted by our source. From your edit:

{{talkquote|On January 30, 2014, a sing-along version of the sequence was released and has garnered more than 700 million views on YouTube as of March 2016.

There can be little doubt that the YouTube video in that link is the authoritative source for the number of views on that very video, and, as of this comment, the video has 5,400,690 views—far less than 700 million. This is the second time I've reverted an edit like this. If I'm missing something, please correct me. Otherwise, please refrain from making this change again. Thank you!  Rebbing  talk  07:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh hi Rebbing, the issue is the source which I didn't spot, thanks, there's another video with 700 million views here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU I'll just update.
Tcamfield (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah! Perfect. Also, the upload date for that video, January 30, 2014, matches the date given in the article; the previously-used video was dated February 11, 2014. Thank you for looking into this.  Rebbing  talk  13:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed YouTube videos[edit]

Hi Tcamfield, first of all I thank you for your compliments, and I appreciate your work too. I agree with you, but unluckily I haven't time enough to always update everything, because 90% of the time I spend on Wikipedia I spend on Italian Wikipedia, and that's why I'm Italian. So I'm very sorry but I can't help you, however i will make my best and when I have more time I will be able to update everything.--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See You Again[edit]

Hi Tcamfield, an war edit is in progress on page See You Again, could you take a look? Thank you.--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

YouTube count[edit]

do you really think this should be updated with every little number? Updating for every milestone seems like it would be fine. It seems a little frivolous to update every little number. --Jennica / talk 23:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a particular article, or all articles in general? Tcamfield (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Despacito is what prompted me to ask it. I'm not trying to be rude. I just think a constant update is sort of pointless. I think milestones should be included, definitely. There are no rules on this though, so... --Jennica / talk 02:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think it might make sense if we did it on all articles for videos above a billion views. Assume "milestones" means every 100 million rather than 10 million views? Then view counts would be rounded to nearest two significant figures across the board, as videos below a billion views would still round to nearest 10 million (eg 340 million, 990 million, but 1.1 billion and 2.6 billion). When I began updating, only two videos had over a billion views, now there are 58, and the "2.83 billion" on Gangnam Style is probably overkill.
To play devil's advocate, I have created a consistent approach across all videos and Despacito is the worst example of the 58 because the views are increasing so fast that I am updating daily. In a matter of weeks I expect this to slow down. And my view count edits (it is mostly me) only make up a small number of the Despacito edits. And I don't mind doing it.
What do you think? Is there any way we can open this up to more people to discuss, otherwise I may have a lot of reverted edits when I try to update 58 articles. Tcamfield (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I would just word it differently. Like "over 1.5 billion views". The way I worded it on Shape of You, it just says something like "On 7 May, the video hit 1 billion views". I guess the next milestone would be 2 billion. And I guess you could open something on the WP:MOSALBUM talk page about this if you wanted. --Jennica / talk 22:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, in my opinion the second decimal digit isn't so pointless; maybe doing an updating every 10 million views is too much, but doing it every 100 million views is really not enough.
This is the only thing I want you to know, however if you decide otherwise I will adapt. --Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess Jennica is suggesting 500 million or even 1 billion milestones and Luke is suggesting less than every 100 million, eg 20 million. I suggest compromise at 100 million, particularly as something other than 10^n is going to provoke people to change it. Eg if someone sees 1.15 billion rounded to nearest 50 million, they naturally want to change to 1.16 billion.
Jennica, Shape of You is fine for now as just recently hit 1 billion views, but when it hits 1.1 billion I will be looking to reinstate something like "as of May 2017, it has over 1.1 billion views" in addition to the bit about hitting 1 billion views. This is mainly for consistency with the other 57 articles, and also because it is useful information, not as much when it's 1.1 billion but definitely at say 1.7 billion.
Luke I reckon it's fun for me and you to see the second decimal place, but I don't think it gives the average reader any useful information. They're not going to think "I'm glad I know it's over 2.76 billion instead of over 2.7 billion". But 2.7 billion compared with 2 billion is an actual big difference.
As I said if it's below 1 billion it stays as rounded to nearest 10 million, it is just for videos above a billion views. I'll make the changes now and see what pushback I get.

───────────────────────── It's arbitrary to me. I don't think people care about the views like that. But go ahead I guess.--Jennica / talk 22:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

YouTube View Policy?[edit]

I think there should be a YouTube view policy?. What do you think? I would like something like this. ex) more than 10 million: every 0.1 million. more than 100 million: every 1 million. more than 250 million: every 5 million. more than 500 million: every 10 million. more than 1billion: every 50 million. more than 1.5 billion: every 100 million. Also, I would like an exact standard to put views, likes, and dislikes. I'm asking you this because you seem more experienced Wikipedian than me.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no official policy, but I encourage all updates to be to two significant figures, so 980 million to 990 million to 1.0 billion to 1.1 billion etc. I think that's a good amount of detail. This is what the topic above on my talk page is about. Agree there should be consistency, thanks. Tcamfield (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi Tcamfield, can you help me with Ashwani8888? He continues to insult me (for example here) and he continues to invent numbers that are not real on page List of most viewed YouTube videos & List of most liked YouTube videos. Thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but he doesn't stop insulting me, can you block him?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tcamfield, I'm very sorry to bother you again (and again), but Ashwani8888 continues to invent numbers and write fake views, and he does that almost every day.... for example today he did this edit and this, and both are incorrect....

Hi Luke, looking at the figures, the second edit seems to have been very close to being correct if not correct, perhaps just a couple of hours away. So I am not too fussed about this. However, the first edit does seem to be a few days too premature and is more concerning. However, I'm not really sure what to do. Can you try talking to him again (nicely) or raising it with Arbitration if this fails. I'm not an admin so have no special powers beyond what you have! Tcamfield (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I wrote to him--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, I understand you are not an admin, but look at this edit, he doesn't stop, what can we do?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Notifications[edit]

Hi Tcamfield, I received some notifications like this:"There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." What do I do? I think I have a strong password--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Tcamfield. 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)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Travesuras moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Travesuras, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. — Zawl 08:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

Hi Tcamfield, look at this new discussion, and if you want you can write a comment, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)