Jump to content

User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Phil Gould

When you retargetted Phil Gould to the DAB page Philip Gould, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. The change broke 246 links.

I know it's an imposition to ask admins to do all the manual labour of cleaning up after this sort of move; but IMO the moving admin should drop a very strong hint to whoever requested the move that they should get stuck in to the task rather than dump the whole shebang onto the WP:DPL gnomes. Narky Blert (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks for the note! I don't create disambiguation pages often, so there's a lot I don't know. I'll be sure to fix back links next time this happens, and in the meantime, I've fixed the outstanding problems you linked me to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The more one digs beneath the superficial and publicly obvious levels of reading articles and of writing those new essential articles and of adding vital information to existing articles, the more one notices that there are all sorts of specialists and specialist collaborations working largely unnoticed behind the scenes, who know for certain that their contributions are essential to the success of the project. It's even possible that one or two of them may in fact be partially right.
So much of Wikipedia is about knowing who and where the experts are; and also who they aren't. For example, I have a mental list of WikiProjects ranging between "knowledgable answers within minutes" and "might as well talk to the wall". Narky Blert (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-16

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

Recent changes

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Wikidata database last week. Some wikis went down for twenty minutes. Wikidata and other projects showed error messages. Interwiki links were not shown, some tools did not work and other problems. Some of this was fixed quickly. The developers are working on fixing the rest. [5][6][7]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 15. It will be on all wikis from April 16 (calendar).

Future changes

  • Some graphs have not worked on mobile. This will soon be fixed. [8]
  • The article tab on talk pages of redirects links to the target of the redirect. It could link to the redirect page itself instead. You can leave feedback on this.
  • For pages using syntax highlighting, the use of the deprecated <source> tag, as well as the use of the deprecated enclose parameter, will add tracking categories.

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

15:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Luke Harper Move

Hi—I'd like you to reconsider, or at least offer some more explanation on your no consensus close of the requested move on Luke Harper. Page moves on professional wrestlers are usually vexed affairs because fans of the various promotions tend to flood in and cast !votes that seem more informed by their fandom than by rules—WWE fans seem to oppose ever moving a page once a wrestler leaves for another promotion. In a situation like this, I would expect the closing admin to look not just at the votes but at the policy justifications, as happened with the page move on Jon Moxley last year. And so a commentless "no consensus" closure is tough to figure out what to do with. Are we stuck with the status quo barring the unlikely development that professional wrestling editors stop bringing their fan affiliations to policy discussions and allow a policy-based consensus to form? Is there some other route by which the reality that every media source covering pro wrestling is calling him Brodie Lee now can be reflected on Wikipedia? Some guidance would be most welcome. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Winter's Tulpa: Thanks for bringing this up! I've looked through the RM again and still don't see consensus for a move. WP:NAMECHANGE says that if, after a name change, reliable sources switch to the new name, we should; if reliable sources don't switch, we should not. It's essentially a restatement of WP:COMMONNAME but with the additional caveat of preferring newer sources to older sources. The opposers contend that the new name is not routinely used, while the supporters claim it is. There seems to be no consensus on whether reliable sources published after the name change routinely and primarily refer to the subject by the new name. There is the additional point at WP:SPNC, linked to from NAMECHANGE, which says The determination of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelihood the new name is going to stick – while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name. Opposers were not convinced that this new name is likely to stick, and while supporters think it will, this point was rebutted by pointing out that the subject had switched their name back previously (and that this is already an attempt to return to a previous name after a first name change). Given all that, there is no consensus that the new name is the most frequently used name in reliable sources and the one most likely to "stick".
As for what to do next, the first option is to wait a bit and try again. The problem brought up by opposers is that there isn't enough evidence to support the move, so if you're correct that this is an enduring name change and one which reliable sources have begun to use exclusively, then with more time, there should be more evidence of that point to convince other editors. The second option would be to start a request for comment on how to handle name changes in professional wrestling. Editors point out that WP:NAMECHANGES isn't really meant to handle professional wrestling, and that the frequent name changes which come with kayfabe plots make determining an enduring name difficult. Developing some kind of criteria for handling name changes in professional wrestling would resolve the wider problem you point out. Hope that helps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd point out that multiple reliable sources using Brodie Lee were provided. I don't think any post-change reliable sources still using Luke Harper were provided, were they? Winter's Tulpa (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Winter's Tulpa: Opposers were not convinced that the provided sources were reliable. You provided two sources in the nomination. One was to a Forbes sites article which multiple previous discussions, including one this year, have agreed are generally unreliable. The other is to a CBS sports article which includes both the new and old name. Participants specifically brought up that fact and said that it shows the new name has not gained much traction since the old name is still needed to identify the subject. Another editor linked to a Bleacher Report article in their support comment while simultaneously saying that "it may be a couple months early" to rename the page which lends credence to the editors saying the weight of sourcing is not sufficient for a rename. In the discussion section, you link to that same Bleacher Report article as well as a New York Post article. The New York Post is a tabloid that is considered marginally reliable. Given all that I believe the opposers when they say the sourcing is unconvincing. Did the opposers provide a list of links that call the subject by the status quo name? No. Am I going to assume they're lying about knowing their subject area? Also no. Opposition was based in policy, so I see no reason to disregard them. Did the supporters also have valid arguments? Yes, which is why the result is "no consensus" rather than "consensus against". If you still disagree and think my close is incorrect, you can request a move review. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-17

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

Tech News

  • The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 4 May 2020.

Recent changes

  • Advanced item The small wiki toolkits is to help smaller wikis that need technical skills. They can learn and share technical skills. [9]
  • Advanced item Over-qualified CSS selectors in Wikimedia skins have been removed. div#content is now .mw-body. div.portal is now .portal. div#footer is now #footer. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. [10]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

  • Some things on the wikis might look weird or not work in Internet Explorer 8 in the future. Internet Explorer 8 was replaced in 2011. [11]
  • The font in the diffs will change. [12]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 April next week. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 April next week. It will be on all wikis from 30 April next week (calendar).

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

18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

3ish months

Hard to believe it's been nearly 3 months since this. I haven't been terribly active, but it's been nice to see your name around quite a bit. I hope all is well with you. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your absence has been felt, but hopefully you've been enjoying the break! I've been trying to distract myself from the quarantine by helping out where I can, and luckily there is no shortage of crises. It's been quite an exciting three months, and I'm still discovering weird-but-useful tools; a few days ago I learned that +sysop lets me change the content model for a page, which made resolving this problem very simple. I don't think I ever properly thanked you for the nomination, but I do greatly appreciate it! No doubt it was a major factor in my success, and hopefully when you're back at full capacity, we'll see more editors lucky enough to have your vote of confidence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You're more than welcome; as the !voting pattern showed, it was a position you were very ready for (for instance; I haven't the faintest what you're referring to on that talk page...) I'm actually hoping to be back to "normal" levels of activity starting this week; let's see how well I can stick to my plans. See you around. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes

Hi Wugapodes,

Recently you closed a movepage discussion on Republic of Ilirida and moved the page to Ilirida. I had a look at the talkpage, and it now has the talkpage from the old Ilirida page [13]. During the renaming, the page names were swapped, but not the talkpages. As the Ilirda talkpage is from long ago, the talkpage that is relevant to the topic is this one [14] after the page's revival under a slightly alternate name of Republic of Ilirida. Is it possible to make that the current pagename? Or would it require a merger of both talkpages, or is neither option possible and they have to stay that way? Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I've moved the talk page. Thanks for letting me know about this! — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for fixing it up. Much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Douglas V Mastriano

Request to re-examine the request for semi-protected status here. The article has been disruptive edited multiple times over the past month by a user with a clear conflict of interest in the article. That user was warned multiple times and seems to have created a separate account in order to avoid a ban. More information about that can be found here. Request to revert the page back to this state https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_V._Mastriano&oldid=953575094 and place the article under semi-protected status to stop further disruption. Hyderabad22 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hyderabad22: To me, it looks like a content dispute. F&INerd has sourced content they wish to include, and you don't want it included. The way to resolve this is by discussing it with the editor on the talk page and coming to a consensus on what to do. In my opinion, changing the name from "Controversy" is probably a good thing per Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies, and I'm wouldn't be surprised if multiple people over the years had problems with it. F&INerd has valid points, and I encourage you both to work together to improve the article; I'm willing to help too if you'd like. But given what I've seen, I don't believe protection is appropriate right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: The sources and the content are highly editorialized. Examples from this edit include statements claiming Mastriano has publicly addressed accusations against him. The linked citation from his own campaign website does not state that. The section discussing HIPPA has no citation for what was added that section is again highly editorialized (and as an aside refers to Dr Levine as a "he" something that DrWillow also did in their edits). Both users seem to be the subject of the article in question. The edits made are not good faith edits based on the continued blanking of sections, removal and editorializing of content and other disruptive edits. The user across both accounts had ample opportunity to disclose their conflict of interest and engage in discussion on the talk page. Something they did not do. They avoided the three revert rule by simply editing back in their content. here and here to make the most recent version of the page. Again request for this version of the article to be restored and semi-protected status be added Hyderabad22 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As an additional aside maybe check the existing biography of a living person discussion for this article here Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Hyderabad22: If you're trying to resolve sock puppetry issues, I'm probably one of the worst administrators to bring it up with. I don't have the right temperament for SPIs, and I would recommend bringing up your concerns with a sock puppet investigation clerk. As far as page protection goes, you've given me enough reason to doubt myself that I would rather have another administrator with fresh eyes look at the request. I'll ask around for a second opinion. Until then, some friendly advice I have for you is to only start one discussion at a time. It is very difficult to look into these matters when information is scattered across multiple pages. When you do start a new discussion, it is important that your first post contains links to all the other relevant discussions. Based on the RfPP request, it seemed like an obvious content dispute decline, but over the past few hours I've slowly gotten more information that would have been helpful from the very start. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Thank you for the advice. In the future to resolve these kinds of issues I will try to cite all relevant information. I appreciate your time. If you need additional information from me please ping me and let me know. Most information pertaining to this should be located in the article talk page, the sock puppet investigation(which I've recently updated), and the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Hyderabad22 (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Likewise sir, thank you for your time. I will also implement your recommendations. Your work is much appreciated!

F&INerd (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Message regarding Capricorn from 2pou

Hello, I'm not sure if this should go under "Bugs" or "Limitations", so I'll let you decide, but I wanted to report this behavior when using Capricorn on redirect pages. This applies to redirects that go to any of these anchor types: {{vanchor}}, {{anchor}}, or <span id>.

  1. The redirect target field does not populate with anchors that are not section headings.
  2. When trying to save a redirect update that goes to an anchor, an error message appears on first save, but it will still take on the second save. Examples:
    1. {{anchor}}: Error: The target page "Isotopes of terbium" does not have a a section called "Terbium-140". Try again to proceed anyway.
    2. {{vanchor}}: Error: The target page "Humble Bundle" does not have a a section called "Android". Try again to proceed anyway.
    3. <span id>: Error: The target page "Humble Bundle" does not have a a section called "Humble Monthly". Try again to proceed anyway.

If not a bug, it's probably worth a mention on the page somewhere for awareness. Thanks for the tool! Regards, 2pou (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I look carefully at the error message, it looks like there's a minor bug in that Error message itself. There's a typo in there: "...does not have a a section called..." -2pou (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the message 2pou! The anchor issue is a known bug. My best idea for implementation would be to search the entire page's HTML for the given ID which sounds expensive. I'll add it to the bugs section for now so that it's clearer, and also fix the typo! — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Request

write an article about Indian Blogger Jayasurya Mayilsamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.51.240.147 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Hey, I sent you a message before about my intention to bring Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt to FA status. I have since added a "legal background" section. Could you review it and, if necessary, change it or leave some feedback for me? I'll still be expanding the 'Supreme Court' section, after which I'll request a copy-edit and then nominate it. --MrClog (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Template editor access

Hi, and thanks for shutting down the edit-warring at Template:Welcome-retro.

A propos of that: Can I get template editor access? I am in the ironic position of having created {{Welcome-retro}}, and being unable to edit it now because it's template-editor protected (as it should be), and I had a specific change I wanted to make. I've created some templates before, and modified quite a few others. I'd say I'm an advanced beginner or intermediate template editor: I use parser functions and param substitution, but I don't do template-generating templates and complex syntax yet. Most of the ones in this list of my contributions of new templates are just redirects or nav templates, but there are a few more serious ones, such as {{To USD round}}, {{Welcome-anon-summary}}, {{Glossary term}}, {{WikiEd banner shell}}, and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Unfortunately, I think I should decline this not for a lack of skill, but for lack of need per WP:TPEGRANT. It seems most of your contributions are to non-template protected pages, so if this is the only template protected page you'd like to edit, I'd much rather lower the protection to ECP. If you were hoping to expand your work to other template protected pages, I'd be more willing, though you may find this user group more useful in the long-run. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Um, what am I missing? "It seems most of your contributions are to non-template protected pages..."—that's by definition, right? I would have edited others, but I don't have the right to do so, which is why I was asking. Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant sandbox pages of template protected pages. Regardless, I thought about this a bit more and given you want to work on Welcome-retro, that's enough to satisfy me that it would be useful. Sorry for the run-around, I haven't granted TPE before so was perhaps overly cautious. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries; appreciated. You're just doing due diligence, and that's to be commended. I'll pay more attention to sandbox pages in the future; perhaps my frustration about editors using the testcases pages incorrectly (for runnng tests, instead of how they ought to be used, namely to enumerate cases that ought not to break with future template changes) spilled over into using my own sandbox instead of Template sandboxes, where such things more rightly should live. Anwyay, thanks much! Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Wugapodes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Enterprisey: Was just about to email you myself. I've replied; I'm also on IRC — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK script fix

Hi, I'm writing to you because you've been helpful with scripts, and you were the last one to edit {{DYKsubpage}}. The issue is that nomination pages containing slashes are not properly categorized. Normally, a pending nom would be in Category:Pending DYK nominations and Category:DYK/Nominations, but a nom subpage with any slashes, such as {{Did you know nominations/Snooker world rankings 1988/1989}} is not. This, I believe, is because {{DYKsubpage}} uses SUBPAGENAME, which for the example returns "1989" rather than "Snooker world rankings 1988/1989". I think this issue can be fixed by replacing SUBPAGENAME with something like #titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}||2. Thanks for looking into this. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: Thanks for the very detailed report! I tracked the problem down to Module:NewDYKnomination, and it should be fixed. If there are still problems, let me know! — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. However, that's a separate (although related) issue, which was going to be the next thing I was going to ask for. The result of that bug is something I can fix myself (as I had done for my example). I asked for this one first since I can't really take care of it myself. For example, if I manually added the categories, I'd have to watch the page and manually change them when the nom was promoted or rejected. So {{DYKsubpage}} still needs to be fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. I've hopefully fixed that too now! — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks again! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A different DYK script issue, again involving SUBPAGENAME: the links added to article talk pages are incorrect when the nom page name is different than the article's name. For example, see here or here. My preference would be to remove the This review is transcluded from <nompage>. You may review or comment on the nomination by clicking <here>. line entirely from {{DYK conditions}}. I know you added it in response to a comment at the bot task approval, but it's really completely unnecessary, as the very next line on the nom has a "Review or comment" link. If you must retain it, the {{SUBPAGENAME}} should be replaced with the correct value, which is in the "nompage" parameter of the {{DYK nompage links}}, although I dunno how you'd easily get that without adding a parameter to {{DYK conditions}}, and please don't do that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: I'm fine removing the line from DYKconditions, but wanted to ask why you'd oppose adding a parameter to it? I like the notice because, for newer editors, it may not be clear how the transclusion works if they click "edit section" and just see {{Did you know nominations/Foo bar}} It seems like we get the best of both worlds if we have DYKconditions take the nom page as a parameter and modify line 18 of Module:NewDYKnomination so that it includes ${NOM_SUBPAGE} as an argument to DYKconditions. That way it's guaranteed that the page link is correct while still keeping the notice line for less experienced editors. It seems like a low cost, but I'm interested in your perspective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
People are always moving nom pages, in spite of being told not to. Afterwards, they occasionally attempt to fix the templates, but they almost always do it wrong. Whether they try to fix it or not, I'm usually the one who ultimately goes in and actually fixes it. Adding another unnecessary parameter would just be adding another thing to fix, for an almost negligible benefit. If the line is to remain, it could just say that it's transcluded from the template linked to immediately below, with the "Review or comment" link. Or if you really prefer it to appear in its current, redundant form, it could be done instead in {{DYK nompage links}}, where the nompage parameter is already available. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Just a nudge in case you forgot about this. There are four options mentioned above to choose from: remove the line, replace it with text but no links, display the line in the other template, or add a parameter. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done thanks for the nudge! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nominative–accusative language

Thanks for your comments there. I have come to the same conclusion about the consensus. (I was misled by the one editor constantly framing the opposition as if it was coming from just one person.) You might find a discussion on my talk page interesting. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think full protection was a reasonable response. There was a note at WT:LING (or maybe WT:LANG) so it helped bring more eyes to the article which is a net positive. I also left a note on Kent's talk page about signatures, so hopefully that completely unrelated issue gets resolved. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a third time for the help with my signature. And, just to summarize my shouts in the wilderness: I agree that the text doesn't belong in the article provided that the article's name is changed to Nominative-accusative alignment to represent its overall content. Furthermore, the entire first paragraph should be deleted as it relates archetypally to Nominative-accusative language and not sub-topically to Nominative-accusative alignment. So, I'm not opposed to eventual excision of the Sociolinguistics section; I'm not advocating its permanent inclusion. I'm opposed to its premature deletion pending the name changes still under consideration. Speaking as one who can't even manage a Wikisignature without assistance, I'd change the names and do the migration myself if I knew the proper Wikiprotocols. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, and sorry, once again about this topic: it looks like the page move has taken the PP beyond its scheduled expiration[15]. Or is it intended for prolonging the cooling-off phase? –Austronesier (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-20

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

Recent changes

  • Everyone can now import photos from Flickr to Commons with the UploadWizard. Before this only autopatrollers on Commons could import photos from Flickr. [16]

Problems

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 May. It will be on all wikis from 14 May (calendar).

Future changes

  • Advanced item JavaScript scripts and gadgets can no longer check multiple keys at once via mw.config.exists() or mw.user.tokens.exists(). You can use exists() or get() to check one at a time instead. [20]

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

20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Appeal declined Further appeals may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to IBAN I cannot comment on SPECIFICO, but I assume I am permitted to do so in the context of discussing or appealing my IBAN, correct? I don't understand why I am being banned when I feel what I have said is accurate, and I have referenced the evidence for the conduct I have observed, although I did not provide direct diffs.

The diffs you provided in my IBAN I believe are themselves direct evidence of the precise behavior I was accusing him of. If everything I said was true, do I need to provide more evidence? It seems so self-evident I feel I am at a loss. But if there is any doubt, shouldn't this be a no-fault two-way IBAN? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: I assume I am permitted to do so in the context of discussing or appealing my IBAN, correct? You are correct. Per WP:BANEX, you may comment on SPECIFICO to the extent that it is necessary to appeal or clarify the ban itself.
although I did not provide direct diffs This is a major part of the issue that led to the sanction. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, if you have legitimate concerns which were not resolved by discussion with the editor, you must bring those concerns and evidence to an appropriate venue such as WP:AE or WP:AN. Continuing to accuse another editor of misbehavior outside of an appropriate forum is unacceptable. Whether or not the diffs I presented exemplify misbehavior by SPECIFICO, they do show conduct by you which inappropriately personalizes disputes.
Take for example, Special:Diff/955950634: Your opinion that it is a good and uncontroversial edit does not entitle you to restore the edit without discussion. is an appropriate response; If you do not revert this I can only conclude you are CIVILPOVPUSHING and this will have to go to a notice board. this is not appropriate; do not threaten other editors. If you have evidence of misconduct, take it to the proper venue, otherwise say nothing. Nothing about that situation required you to conclude misconduct. You could assume SPECIFICO was acting in good faith to try and address your concerns instead of immediately assuming bad faith.
Another example is Special:Diff/956096968: questioning the delay in administrative action is appropriate, but comments such as his comments to me show dishonesty and bad faith, and his suspicious break from editing shows he has declined to self-revert are not appropriate. Editors take breaks for many reasons (I took one this weekend to spend time with my family, for example, which is why I only got to your ping today), and characterizing a break as "suspicious" is inappropriate (see WP:VOLUNTEER). Even if you are correct that SPECIFICO has taken a break due to this conflict, disengaging from a dispute that is causing you distress is the correct response (see WP:BREATHER).
Personalizing disputes, accusing editors of behaving in bad faith, and engaging in battleground behavior are always inappropriate and are the exact reasons why the topic area is under discretionary sanctions in the first place. This is not a no-fault IBAN because there is fault. I have detailed the problems which justify the IBAN in the sanction template and have expanded on them above. SPECIFICO is currently topic banned from the material which catalyzed this conflict, so I do not believe banning them from interacting with you is useful right now. Should the situation change, you may raise concerns with evidence in an appropriate venue. You may appeal this decision and sanction at WP:AE or at WP:AN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I am hearing your concerns about procedure, but I ask that you look at the evidence. I do not feel I am assuming bad faith; I feel that his talk page comments are evidence of bad faith. My language may have been sloppy when I said "I can only conclude you are CIVILPOVPUSHING (if you...), because I had already made that conclusion based on the evidence in his talk page and the Joe Biden talk page I referenced. This was not an immediate assumption of bad faith. I ask that you look at the evidence and background and consider that everything I have said is true. The CIVILPOVPUSHING is a very serious problem. I feel like it is not only my responsibility to take the issue to AE when administrators have been notified (especially considering the sealioning I have pointed out in our talk pages). Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: Even if I were to agree that everything you have said is true, it is still the case that you are not abiding by WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND which are the stated reasons for your IBAN. WP:ASPERSIONS does not say you are free to cast aspersions as long as you ping an administrator. It does not say you are free to cast aspersions if you think you're right. Quite the opposite: a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true. SPECIFICO's conduct is immaterial to your IBAN, because it is your responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner. No one else is responsible for your actions. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. If you cannot be bothered to raise your concerns in a civil manner at the appropriate venue with appropriate evidence, then say nothing about the other editor's character or motives. It is that simple. Unless and until you are willing to either follow appropriate dispute resolution procedures or stop accusing other editors of misconduct during a dispute, I will not unilaterally lift the IBAN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
But what I am saying is that I am not casting aspersions because my claims are not unsupported nor exaggerated. The evidence is right there in his talk page, which I referenced.
My comments were intended to warn him to stop his behavior or the next step was a noticeboard, but at that point he was given a chance to revert, and Bradv gave him a chance to revert.
I have not been personalizing disputes, I have been attacked personally. Now that you are aware that he has been engaging in CIVILPOVPUSHING and SEALIONING, I feel this must be addressed. Now that you have taken action against me outside of AE please address the whole picture. I am not asking for an IBAN against him; what scares me about his behavior is that administrators fall for it. It would be easy to ignore if I didn't have to worry about that.
To address the other piece where I spoke poorly, I would say it would be more fitting to say that his comments to me show dishonesty and bad faith, and his break from editing means that after he declined to self-revert he likely won't be expected to if Bradv won't take action without a response. And it wouldn't make sense for me to take this to a noticeboard if Bradv doesn't feel it is actionable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I am not casting aspersions because my claims are not unsupported nor exaggerated I quite obviously disagree, and have explained why above. The evidence is right there in his talk page, which I referenced you should bring up concerns in a civil manner in the appropriate venue; you repeatedly did not. My comments were intended to warn him to stop his behavior or the next step was a noticeboard You have been "warning" him for weeks with no follow through; shit or get off the pot. what scares me about his behavior is that administrators fall for it Consider the possibility that administrators are not dupes, and that it is not your singular mission to save the encyclopedia from an editor you don't like. I have previously raised my concerns about SPECIFICO's conduct with them in a civil manner, so the idea that I am somehow falling for a trick is not as convincing as you think. Stop blaming other people; I'm not interested in whataboutisms. Unless your position is that the diffs included in your sanction show you being civil and collegeal in raising your concerns with SPECIFICO, you will not change my mind. You may appeal this sanction and decision at WP:AE or WP:AN if you believe I am incorrect, but I will not lift this sanction of my own volition. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like we're having a misunderstanding, or at least I'm confused now. I'm hearing you say that if I have concerns I should bring them up in a civil manner at a noticeboard, but also that you don't see evidence of this bad faith and uncivil behavior. If you don't feel what I have pointed out is evidence, then there's no reason to expect something different at a noticeboard. But also if you don't feel what I've pointed out is evidence, I don't know why it's unfair to say he is successful at deception.
Please do not suggest that I have a mission attached to this editor. I have not gone looking for this. I am saying that I am afraid of personally interacting with him because I do not expect administrators to take action against him for his uncivil behavior. If they saw it as I do he wouldn't have been able to be so cavalier for so long. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I'm hearing you say ... that you don't see evidence of this bad faith and uncivil behavior I have not said this; I have said that SPECIFICO's conduct is immaterial to your appeal because you are responsible for your behavior. I don't know why it's unfair to say he is successful at deception. yes, this is why you are currently subject to an interaction ban. I suggest you re-read the posts above and the included links. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I hear that you are saying that his conduct is immaterial to my behavior.
I was saying that I don't know why it's unfair to suggest that you are being fooled if you don't feel that what I've pointed out is evidence. (I used the other language because I was trying to avoid offending you.)
I quite obviously disagree. Are you saying my claims were unsupported or exaggerated, or is that irrelevant to whether I was casting aspersions?
I think I haven't spoken clearly because you haven't commented on what I was trying to communicate. I am hearing you say that if I have a complaint about his conduct I should bring that up at AE or AN, but you have seen what I feel is evidence of his incivility, just as you have seen what you've said is my incivility, and you have taken action against me for incivility but not taken action against him for incivility, so I have no reason to expect a different result if I bring a complaint about his incivility to a noticeboard. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with aspersions is not simply that it's the wrong venue or unsubstantiated; WP:Process is important because this procedure forces you to disengage from a heated discussion and prevents continued escalation as one side accuses the other of doing bad stuff. Consider again Special:Diff/956096968. You are concerned that SPECIFICO is civil POV-pushing, if that is true it is not evidence of incivility. If that diff is an example of incivility, then your claim that they are civil POV-pushing is unfounded. If the situation is more complex than that, you need to follow dispute resolution procedures to de-escalate the situation, not continue to escalate the situation by casting aspersions in a thread. SPECIFICO's conduct has improved since I brought up my concerns in a civil manner on their talk page, and per WP:AGF the conduct at Diff/956096968 shows that they are at least trying to work with you. When the discussion got heated, they disengaged, presumably to avoid saying something they may regret. Despite this you continued to post on their talk page and accuse them of behaving in bad faith. This can be hard to realize when you're in the thick of a dispute, and why it's critical to disengage and seek dispute resolution in a civil manner elsewhere. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you pointing to the diff itself? That is not an example of SPECIFICO's conduct; that diff is not a comment of his. I feel like we're talking past each other. I am saying that his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying. If you and other administrators are fooled by that then there's nothing I can do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GAN report didn't run tonight

Wugapodes, I thought you'd want to know that the 01:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC) report was not generated. I hope whatever caused the omission is a quick fix. (The DYK side of things did the usual move of approved hooks a minute later at 01:01.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's due to something wrong with pywikibot, but I've managed to get it fixed. Luckily the problem was only with logging in, so all the data from the 01:00 run still exists; I've fixed it so that the report page uses the 01:00 rather than the data from 17:52 when it actually ran. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Example article/with slash in name at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

SCOTUS sketchs

Hey Wugapodes, I figured I could nominate one of the sketchs as Valued image on Commons. Commons only allows one image per scope as VI (in this case, I figured the scope would be SCOTUS oral arguments) unless multiple images in a set are necessary to understand what is happening (doesn't apply here). Which of the two do you think is best? --MrClog (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: I'd suggest File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg. The alternative, File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, has some aspects that make the Waxman sketch technically superior. I don't like Kavanaugh's expression in the Chemerinsky drawing, and Chemerinsky's gesture points directly at it, drawing focus to Kavanaugh's face repeatedly (I think it's just the angle, I'm sure it's an accurate depiction of Kavanaugh in that position). His expression in Waxman's portrait is far more interesting. Waxman's posture keeps the whole image balanced, while Chemerinsky's lean makes the composition feel rather cramped. I also think the colors are rendered slightly better; the bench in Chemerinsky has a lot of blue undertones with hard edges that make it feel muddled, while in Waxman the blue undertones are better blended into the orange overtones making the bench coloring more even. That's not to say the Chemerinsky drawing is not good; it's actually a wonderful example of Lien's style. The postures of all the figures are natural and compelling. Chemerinsky's posture does a good job characterizing him and showing his nonchalance in the situation, and the bent finger is an interesting focal point in a composition with a lot of straight edges; Kagan's expression--especially her hand position--evokes pensiveness that doesn't come through as well in the Waxman drawing; Kavanaugh's expression is similarly enigmatic, and the emotions behind it are harder to pin down compared with the Waxman drawing. They're both good and you can't go wrong, but if I had to choose one, I would suggest the Waxman drawing on its technical merits since the stylistic aspects of the Chemerinsky drawing are also present in the Waxman drawing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I have opened a review at c:Commons:Valued image candidates/Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg. --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI: The Waxman sketch has since been approved as a Valued image and I have now nominated the set on Commons as a featured picture set. --MrClog (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence

Wugapodes, I have been trying to ask you if you see the conduct of SPECIFICO which was part of the dispute which led to the IBAN. I have said that his comments on his talk page are evidence of incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing, particularly WP:CIVILITY 2.(d) lying. Do you see this?  This is essential to a full understanding of this event. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have previously answered this question. incivility in the form of civil POV-pushing is an oxymoron so I really don't see how you think this is good evidence of anything. This is essential to a full understanding of this event It is not, and I have explained to you how it is not. In case I have not been sufficiently clear, I am stating unequivocally now that trying to convince me that SPECIFICO is somehow to blame for your behavior is not material to your appeal and thus not covered by WP:BANEX. Your appeal to me has been denied. Your next course of action is to abide by your IBAN and either drop the stick or appeal my decision at WP:AE or WP:AN. I have said all I have to say on this matter, and will not reply further. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It's unfair to tell me to drop the stick without acknowledging that you have repeatedly not addressed my question.  There is no oxymoron; I cited specific policy.
I am not trying to convince you of anything about my behavior; it is what you are apparently ignoring in this that concerns me.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to convince you of anything about my behavior If that is the case then you are violating your IBAN which is why I am ignoring it. If you insist I not ignore it, the proper course of action is to block you for violating your IBAN after I clearly told you that this is not covered by WP:BANEX. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe that my IBAN is inappropriately one-way, so my behavior is not the only thing to consider. I can accept this is the end of the discussion, but I do not believe you gave me due process. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I just read this: "you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them", per WP:ADMINACCT. For the record, I have repeatedly asked you if you examined the WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying conduct I cited which shows that a two-way IBAN is more appropriate than the one-way you issued, and you have not addressed this. I am not asking for a reversal to an at-fault IBAN against him, but because I see no evidence that you have properly examined the dispute from both sides before sanctioning me, I believe a no-fault two-way IBAN is the proper resolution. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Special:Diff/956376465/956386743 — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the more I home in on the question I am asking the more evasive you get. A one week topic ban is four times less useful at preventing interaction than a one month IBAN. If there is to be an IBAN it should be two-way and equal, either no-fault or both at-fault. But again, your apparent failure to examine the evidence and refusal to engage in due process is grounds for you to reverse your action and recuse yourself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned you at another editor's talk page

Hi, in case the ping doesn't work, I mentioned you here User talk:Yamla#Denial of appeal but already copied to AN [21]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/US Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Diamer-Bhasha Dam

I defer to your judgement but a lot of these India-Pakistan conflict related articles are and have been a source of near endless POV editing. My usual approach is to just slap indefinite ECP on them per ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's fine too; I'm still trying to get a handle on when and when not to use ECP so thanks for the note. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Just be sure to log it at WP:ACDSLOG if you are invoking ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
NM. I see you already handled it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

Wugapodes, please do not cast aspersions against me by accusing me of having a "long term pattern of" misconduct as you did here. The one-sided evidence you cited does not accurately represent these conflicts. Based on these accusations, your improper block[22], and your refusal to explain your one-way IBAN[23][24] per WP:ADMINACCT, I feel you have become WP:INVOLVED and are no longer to able to judge my actions neutrally. In the future please do not engage with me in your role as administrator. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your complete lack of understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is readily apparent given that I brought up my concerns with evidence on a noticeboard in a discussion of your conduct, but you'll believe what you like I suppose. I've tried my best, but you clearly have issues with tendentious editing that go beyond my ability or will to resolve. I have every intention of not interacting with you in any capacity, so please stop posting to my talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Local update times

Hi, could someone expand the Local Update Times section at T:DYKQ to take into account all the prep sets? It's a little hard figuring out where to place things on our twice a day schedule, taking into account daytime/nighttime in certain areas. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wugapodes/Archive_12&oldid=1113372787"