User talk:Beetstra
VOTE OPPOSE
No signs that the Arbitration Committee is in any form willing to change for the better (as expected). For years we have been complaining about anchoring, about railroading, about bias. When someone comes before ArbCom, ArbCom has to sanction, no matter how feeble the evidence is. They do not care to properly present the evidence that they make decisions on. They do not care whether the editor has been trying to improve since. And when an editor comes again in front of ArbCom, they will just increase the sanctions - they have been here before so they must be guilty. It is becoming more and more clear that there is no will, nor possibility to improve.1 This institute should be abandoned - NOW |
| |||||
|
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports | |||||
Responding
I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL
There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:
If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources
I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert
I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template). |
|
|
What happened with XLinkBot?
[edit]It doesn't seem to have been active for over 2 years. There was a recent discussion to de-list a site from the blacklist, and I felt that moving it to XLinkBot would be a great next step, but someone pointed out that it hasn't been working in a while. Any chance of resurrecting it? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, would you respond, or point me to where I can learn some history? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry. I have been very inactive for a long time, and most of my bots had a hard time as well. I have resurrected the bot a month ago, seems to be doing fine, even collecting the usual complaints :-). Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's great to know. XLinkBot is a useful tool for sites that need attention but may not necessarily warrant blacklisting. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which
applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past
. - A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
Arbitration
- Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
- Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
- The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
- Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
Administrators' newsletter – October 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
- Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
- An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
- Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).
Miscellaneous
- If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.
Curlie/DMOZ
[edit]en:User talk:Beetstra says: Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} but it was recently TfD-ed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_20#Template:Curlie. Polygnotus (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is why it says 'like' :-D. I guess it should be removed, bit out of time by now. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now have a program that uses the eventstream to check when new links get added and filters those edits that (a) are on en.wikipedia.org (b) are not done by a bot (c) are added by someone who made less than 500 edits (d) are not to the top 10.000 most referenced domains on Wikipedia. Did I miss anything? Any other checks I should add? Should I make the program post on Discord/IRC? Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it looks you are doing the same as what m:User:LiWa3 does globally. You may want to look on IRC at it’s stream and it’s friends, COIBot and XLinkBot. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now have a program that uses the eventstream to check when new links get added and filters those edits that (a) are on en.wikipedia.org (b) are not done by a bot (c) are added by someone who made less than 500 edits (d) are not to the top 10.000 most referenced domains on Wikipedia. Did I miss anything? Any other checks I should add? Should I make the program post on Discord/IRC? Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Chembot help?
[edit]hey mate, the page for sulfuric acid has a cross symbol for the chembox validation, but i dont understand how to fix it.. what must be done? I also noticed the same for the pages of methanol and acetic acid.. i believe the bot marks the page with an x if any extra text is added to the chembox..
Thanks 120.19.149.247 (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- We should consider to disable all those marks. It was turned out cumbersome to keep track of, and then there was also the integration with WikiData. I think it is better to remove the parameters. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
"Diamondina" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Diamondina has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15 § Diamondina until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)