User talk:The ed17
| This is The ed17's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 |
|---|
| 1 December 2025 |
|
Consensus on Floppy Disk article content?
[edit]I'm sorry but I do not see consensus on content of the FD article. There seems to be support for 1, 2 and 3/5 and some of the support for 1 is conditional on the article being renamed Floppy disk (traditional) or some such variant. I could add up the numbers if you want. Another issue in declaring consensus is the absence of requirement for WP:Preserve - the article is well referenced for all four generations of FDs, changing it into an article about traditional floppy disks without preserving the material on high-capacity FDs would violate this policy. In the absence of consensus shouldn't the content remain the status quo. On the other hand, if you still feel there is a consensus shouldn't your closing remarks deal with renaming and preserving? Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Tom94022: There is a clear consensus in that discussion, and it does not favor the approach you supported. Should you want to challenge my close, I'd invite you to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. To answer your points:
- A rename was a barely discussed or supported option, so it shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't find consensus for that.
- PRESERVE does not require us to preserve all referenced content ever added to Wikipedia, nor is the RfC's closure preventing you from preserving relevant text by moving it to Floppy disk variants with proper attribution. You could also attempt to make a case that the failed attempt to create a market for high-capacity floppy disks is a notable topic worthy of a separate Wikipedia article. (I did consider and write a draft that included the latter suggestion in my close, but in the end I felt that would be stretching my role as a closer too far by reading too much between the lines.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps a closer look at the statistics may change your mind:
Editor Traditional FD
#1Traditional FD + Odd sizes
#2FD
#3 or #5"Comment Locke Cole 1 Soft support #2 Celjski Grad 1 ButlerBlog 1 WhatamIdoing 1 1 Tom94022 1 Support #1 if renamed FaviFake 1 -Snævar 1 Ethmostigmus 1 Pavlor 1 Rich Farmbrough 1 SnowFire 1 1 IndrasBet 1 1 TiggerJay 1 Weak support #2 LCU ActivelyDisinterested 1 MrOllie 1 Markbassett 1 1 could be retitled Total 9 4 6
- Note that two of the editors who supported #2 did not support #1 arguably making it 8 editors not in favor of #1 versus 9 editors in favor, not exactly consensus. I would add that many of the reasons for #1 were for readers to not be surprised by the content - the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, isn't it? Fifty years from now when no one knows what is a floppy disk, shouldn't someone coming to this article find the entire history of FDs including its attempted 4th, high-capacity generation? There are lots of reliable sources for the inclusion - none for exclusion. Tom94022 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- RfC consensus comes from the strength of the arguments made, not the quantity at which they are repeated. This is WP:DETCON 101 stuff. Furthermore, your arguments around preserving and surprising are effectively asking me to make a supervote in a re-determination of the RfC consensus. I decline to do so. Appealing via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- May I suggest that this is a case of WP:NOCON and you are in effect casting a supervote by preferring the "quality" the arguments in favor of #1 over those of #3/5? To summarize the arguments:
- This recent edit to the FD article points out the problem with the "consensus" you endorsed. The Burroughs 8-inch "Super Minidisk" is IMO a "variant" and not a "traditional" FD but since there is no definition of a "traditional" it becomes a matter of opinion. As it turns out this may be a moot point since so far no editor has deemed it necessary to remove any material from the article so I probably won't bother to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Tom94022 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- You can suggest that, whether or not it's accurate. :-) As I said above, part of a closer's job is to weigh the strength of the arguments presented, as determining consensus is not the same thing as counting votes. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I imagine someone will eventually get around to updating the article to align it with the consensus decision as determined through that RfC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, I guess I will have to pursue an appeal via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Would you mind sharing what you found strong about the various arguments in favor of option #1 "Traditional" floppy disk? If one takes literally the arguments you found strong then the article will not have any material on high-capacity floppy disks or other variant floppy disks, only "traditional" floppy disk. It is undisputed that there is no reliable source for such a limitation so this so-call consensus if "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" might be a local consensus violating the policy that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. My positions are that there was no consensus, that the strongest arguments favor the current article and a literal implementation of the so-called consensus would violate Wikipedia policy. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've said my piece. Please ask for a close review. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- OK, in process and will post in a week or so. Thanks for the dialog. Tom94022 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Tom94022 you were informed about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE nearly three weeks ago. You need to make your challenge immediately or you need to stop wasting our time by stonewalling the process with indefinite deadlines like
a week or so
. If I don't see such a challenge from you by this time tomorrow I will begin editing floppy disk to reflect the consensus reached. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)- @Locke Cole According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.
. The clock started yesterday. Your deadline is meaningless. Tom94022 (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)- There is no clock; the RfC consensus can be enacted at any time. If the close review results in an overturn, the relevant edits would of course be reverted. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole According to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
- @Tom94022 you were informed about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE nearly three weeks ago. You need to make your challenge immediately or you need to stop wasting our time by stonewalling the process with indefinite deadlines like
- OK, in process and will post in a week or so. Thanks for the dialog. Tom94022 (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've said my piece. Please ask for a close review. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well then, I guess I will have to pursue an appeal via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Would you mind sharing what you found strong about the various arguments in favor of option #1 "Traditional" floppy disk? If one takes literally the arguments you found strong then the article will not have any material on high-capacity floppy disks or other variant floppy disks, only "traditional" floppy disk. It is undisputed that there is no reliable source for such a limitation so this so-call consensus if "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" might be a local consensus violating the policy that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. My positions are that there was no consensus, that the strongest arguments favor the current article and a literal implementation of the so-called consensus would violate Wikipedia policy. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You can suggest that, whether or not it's accurate. :-) As I said above, part of a closer's job is to weigh the strength of the arguments presented, as determining consensus is not the same thing as counting votes. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I imagine someone will eventually get around to updating the article to align it with the consensus decision as determined through that RfC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- RfC consensus comes from the strength of the arguments made, not the quantity at which they are repeated. This is WP:DETCON 101 stuff. Furthermore, your arguments around preserving and surprising are effectively asking me to make a supervote in a re-determination of the RfC consensus. I decline to do so. Appealing via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that two of the editors who supported #2 did not support #1 arguably making it 8 editors not in favor of #1 versus 9 editors in favor, not exactly consensus. I would add that many of the reasons for #1 were for readers to not be surprised by the content - the point of an encyclopedia is to learn things, isn't it? Fifty years from now when no one knows what is a floppy disk, shouldn't someone coming to this article find the entire history of FDs including its attempted 4th, high-capacity generation? There are lots of reliable sources for the inclusion - none for exclusion. Tom94022 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi, a brief courtesy note that following your guideance I have submitted a procedural review request at the ANI regarding the RfC closure. I will be placing the required notice on the involved editor’s talk page shortly. I am also holding off notifying article talk pages to allow uninvolved administrators to review first. Thank you again for your time and attention. Tom94022 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Arbitration
- After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.
[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
The Bugle: Issue 234, October 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Guide to temporary accounts
[edit]Hello, The ed17. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
- When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:
~2025-12345-67(a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5). - All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
- A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
- As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
- There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
- There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
- Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
- Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
- It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
- It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
- Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
- Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
- Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.
~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR
, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67) - See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.
Useful tools for patrollers
- It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options →
Enable the user info card
- This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
- Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
- Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
- The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.
Videos
-
How to use Special:IPContributions
-
How automatic IP reveal works
-
How to use IP Info
-
How to use User Info
Further information and discussion
- For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.
Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
November article improvement drive
[edit]Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
WikiCup 2025 November newsletter
[edit]The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points
Our high scorers in the final round were:
- BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
- Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
- AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
- History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
- BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
- TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
- Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total
A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:
- Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Administrators' newsletter – November 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
- Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.
Technical news
- You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
- Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 71
[edit]
Issue 71, September–October 2025
- Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
- Frankfurt Book Fair
- Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
(This message was sent to User:The ed17 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
The Bugle: Issue 235, November 2025
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!
[edit]Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!
[edit]Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. 
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back
[edit]Horse Eye's Back seems to have come out of retirement to beat their drum about sources in highway articles and it's just getting way more tendentious and circuitous than before. Do you feel an ANI is needed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: I have little appetite for drawing that up and significantly engaging in an ANI, as HEB is beyond exhausting to converse with. I have already lost many hours of my life to that black hole of a situation. I also have little faith that the English Wikipedia community can understand the depth of the problems HEB brings to a collegial editing environment—I personally thought they should have been blocked for a time as a result of their actions two years ago, but I only proposed an admonishment because of that lack of faith. At its core, it's a WP:DICKERY problem: an active problem, but not obvious enough to most.
- Still, HEB is on what the last ANI closer called a final warning. If you feel you have enough diffs that can demonstrate the depths to which HEB is continuing to exemplify WP:IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, SEALIONING, BLUDGEON, GAME, etc., etc., and ideally in more than just the roads topic area, go for it. I'd support. If not, start cataloging diffs to present them at an ANI in a few months.
- My suspicion is that this will all end up at Arbcom someday, and much like Malleus/Eric Corbett we'll look back and say "what took so long?" Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it's good to know that I'm not always right. Thanks for kicking that discussion off, TenPoundHammer. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Here you go: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
More vandalism on Peru history pages
[edit]See; User contributions for ~2025-38677-06 - Wikipedia LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging! That looks like the same sock, given the infobox edits, but they're innocuous enough that I don't think I have a total justification to unilaterally DUCK the temp account. I'll keep an eye on those contribs for a few days. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- NP if I had concerns about the edits in particular, in one article language was subtly changed such that its suggestive that prisoners were in some way combatants (calling them senderistas) - I find this very problematic
- - numbers of casualties were also changed to those that disagreed with the text of the article imo just vandalism
- - the removal of the Alan Garcia series is probably also just vandalism
- given the history of the account and observations i have made, edit summaries often dont exist, if they are given they dont correspond to whats actually done
- often many small changes eg pixel changes, formatting etc are made alongside subtle but important changes in terminology eg senderistas vs prisoners
- senderistas literally means hiker but its in most cases applied to fighters of the group.
- CHAPTER TWO. Peru's Sendero Luminoso Rebellion: Origins a...
- Peru's Sendero Luminoso: The Shining Path Beckons on JSTOR LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
- We're in agreement here! I'm just being cautious with the block hammer (great power, great responsibility, etc., etc.), and I suspect that they've already hopped IPs again. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Canto Grande massacre - Wikipedia
- see this rev, then minor changes were made with a second IP address, looks like you are right with the IP hopping
- User contributions for ~2025-38860-98 - Wikipedia
- both make just one contribution then are unused idk what can really be done tbqh LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- We're in agreement here! I'm just being cautious with the block hammer (great power, great responsibility, etc., etc.), and I suspect that they've already hopped IPs again. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)