User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #12

Welcome to the twelfth newsletter from the Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

General news

  • A training for mentors has been published. The training was first tried with the Czech community, and went well.
  • Growth team features have been deployed to Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Armenian Wikipedias. If your community is enthusiastic about welcoming newcomers, we encourage you to contact us so that we can verify together whether your wiki is eligible. Then you can go through the checklist to start the process of configuring the features.

Productive edits from newcomer tasks

We deployed the basic workflow for newcomer tasks to our target wikis on November 20, and the early results are exciting.

Suggested edits by type of edit.
Graph captions (top to bottom):
■ Copyedits
■ Add links
■ Expand article
■ Add reference
■ Advanced edits
  • About 1.5% of newcomers who visit their homepage complete the workflow and save a suggested edit. So far, this has amounted to over 450 edits, on all wikis, coming from both desktop and mobile users.
  • When we look at the edits that newcomers make, we see that they are largely positive! We are pleased to see that this feature does not appear to encourage vandals.
    • 75% of the edits are productive and unreverted.
    • 95% of the edits appear to be in good faith.
  • Most of the edits include copyedits and adding links, with some newcomers also adding content and references. Copyedits are suggested most strongly.
  • Click here to learn more specifics about the results so far.

Topic matching deployed

The results from our user tests showed us that newcomers are likely to do more suggested edits if they can choose articles related to a topic that they're interested in, such as "science", "music", or "sports".

  • On January 21, we deployed topic matching on our pilot wikis. Newcomers are now using it. We expect it to cause more newcomers to try suggested edits, and to keep making more of them.
  • In the coming weeks, we will be making improvements to the accuracy of the algorithm used to topic matching, which is part of the ORES project.

Next steps for newcomer tasks

Prototype of how the help panel will "peek" from the bottom of the page to offer guidance on mobile.

Because we are seeing positive results from newcomer tasks, the Growth team plans to concentrate our efforts on improving the workflow and encouraging more newcomers to use it.

  • Guidance: next, we will be using the help panel to provide guidance to newcomers as they do suggested edits, and to prompt them to do another edit after completing their first one. In user tests for this feature, demo videos were one of the favorite features, and we will think about how these might be added.
  • Starting the workflow: only about 20% of newcomer who visit their homepage begin the newcomer tasks workflow. We are going to be trying out different layouts of the homepage to encourage more newcomers to try newcomer tasks.
  • Additional task types: we are researching methods to recommend more specific tasks to newcomers, such as specific links to add, or images that could be added to articles from Commons.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Back?

Hi. How have you been? I hope everything is grand IRL.
In last few days, I saw your comment at WT:NPP/R. I thought it was sporadic, but a few minutes ago I saw your discussion again (which mentioned your trip to ANI). I came here to say hello, and realised you may be "active" again. So: are you back again?

I am sort of still active, but I am on mobile. Currently, most of my activity is limited to watching my watchlist, and WP:DELSORT/INDIA. I think it will be one or two weeks more till I get access to an actual computer again (the reasons are super stoopid behind it). But I hope to be fully active again soon, and start working again with NPP. Whats going on with you? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 12

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (December 2019 and January 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 12th issue issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX launch vehicles

I see you have removed SpaceX launch vehicles from the rocket families category, but you forgot to remove it from the template as well. Tercer (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help

You can verify my article by watching bihar government official website {{|url=http://biharboardonline.bihar.gov.in/school-college-directory}} By using, School name as_Practical high school School code_92096 And also on by using {{|url=https://schools.org.in/pilibhit/09210800914/p.s.-habibull-khan-ii.html}} Please don't delete my article. Sturdyankit (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sturdyankit, The article currently lacks context to explain where this school is, and lacks references. I have moved it to the draft space, not deleted it. I suggest going through the process at Articles for creation by reading the template at the top of the draft page. Hope that helps. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Keep supporting and always provide some advices realated to new article, here I am new user but want to become a wikipedian. Sturdyankit (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Sturdyankit, No worries. AfC can be a bit backlogged but there are people over there that can help out. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir, I just added some refrance or citations to my new article,as you previously mentioned, But still there showing orphan article. I can't understand its meaning. Please review it, For this I am highly obliged of you. Sturdyankit (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sturdyankit, Well, you recreated it in mainspace before it was ready, and now it has gone to AfD. others will comment there, and that process will now continue for the next week or so, not much I can do about that. My intention in moving it to draft space was that you could improve it before moving to mainspace. Looking at available sources, it looks like the school simply doesn't cross the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY though, which is somewhat insurmountable. I'd recommend starting by writing something else as a first article instead, where notability is more clear and there are plenty of reliable secondary sources. Trying to write an article on something with borderline notability as your first article is not a good idea. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir,always keep supporting me in future. Sturdyankit (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts

Hi. I appreciate you are busy elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to let you know that am doing a Teahouse spring clean and have removed your name from the Teahouse Hosts list, as you've not been very active there. In fact, your last contribution there was in August 2018. That doesn't mean you're not welcome to answer questions there at any time, or to sign up again as a Host if your interest reawakens. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, Totally fine! I probably should have done that a while ago, as I became busy on other areas of the wiki. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 in Canada

I think this is a terrible precedent, but it is what it is. Since at least 2007, we have kept the coming year's "Year in Major Country" article, and until 2019, we routinely kept the coming three years articles. So at least a clear change of consensus has occurred, therefore we can add that to WP:OUTCOMES. I am a fan of clear-cut rules anyway. I thought that next year's events would clearly be notable and will likely happen, unless we have become so fatalistic that it is as if we have decided that none of these shall occur because Donald Trump, Sr., will obliterate Canada with atomic bombs. My satire was used to point out that events 10 to 22 months out should be predictable, but if not, then it is because we have decided that our zeitgiest in the past 12 years has made our lives so unpredictable that we can't logically predict which events will surely become notable and which will probably pass in the night. Thank you for your understanding that no BLP violation was intended. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bearian, Well, I didn't know about previous AfDs. I was going off the existing situation where we simply had a couple of outliers and almost no countries had future year articles. These AfDs were indeed a litmus test of sorts. I wasn't sure if we would keep the 2021 in Canada article or not to be honest, but felt that it needed to be tested. If you feel like adding that to OUTCOMES, that's probably a good idea. I understand you don't intend a BLP vio, but I'm still a bit confused by your use of Donald Trump in that hyperbolic way (even aside from BLP issues, I think it's a bad idea because it stirs up political tensions in discussions). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Since we can't 'thank' for page curation reviews...

Thank you, Insertcleverphrasehere, for marking as reviewed my two Wiktionary soft redirects. I'm certain either of Narky Blert, kingboyk, or SMcCandlish would have reviewed them, but I appreciate your actioning them so quickly—and I appreciate seeing another patrolling reviewer who gets the idea behind soft redirects (i.e., WP:SISP/WP:SOFTREDIRECT) as I feel like many of the new-ish patrollers are like deers in the headlights when it comes to soft redirects.

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 00:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Help & suggestion

Hello dear sir, Sorry for disturbing you again But I have to ask, "Is the result of Afd based on votes (i.e, no. of counts of keep and delete)"? And also, I previously read a wiki content their mentioned admin decides the result of Afd in 7 days but for my article today is 7th day and till now I got no result. I don't know why but I am getting panic? Sturdyankit (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sturdyankit, there is often a bit of a delay, and sometimes discussion is relisted for another 7 days if it needs more. It is technically based on the strength of policy based arguments, but it generally ends up loosely based on the number of votes when assessing notability. If roughly even, it will default as normal consensus’ and is kept. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Draft namrespace

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Excuse me?"

This doesn't belong in that RfC any more, but: bachelors degree ... basic statistics ... basic principles ... obvious conclusion ... a semester worth of population dynamics. You are not arguing a position "here is what the mainstream scientific view is" (which is the topic of the RfC). Instead, you are arguing "not only is the purported mainstream view wrong, but it is obviously, trivially wrong in basic ways." So there are two possibilities: you are right and the authors (actual genuine subject-matter experts!) cited in the detailed nomination statement, as well as all the "yes" voters, are wrong in embarrassing, trivial, obvious, basic ways. Or ....

(On a separate note: pseudo-defending Mankind Quarterly is a terrible look, but in a totally different way.) --JBL (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept what you are saying about "the mainstream view", and I'm not saying it is "wrong". All the studies actually looking at the people who publish in intelligence research say the same thing, everyone is unsure how much of observed differences are genetic vs environmental. My point is that there are reasons why experts in the field believe as they do. They aren't just making it up "because racism". Statistically it is nigh-impossible for different groups to have the exact same of any heritable trait, it might be trivially small, or might be statistically indistinguishable, or it might be statistically significant. The nomination statement was very carefully cited to anthropological sources, rather than psychology sources, if it had been the later, the conclusion would not be the same. I have never once defended Mankind Quarterly. Period. If you are going to misrepresent me on my own talk page, I'll ask you to kindly go elsewhere. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you think you understand the field better than experts, and the substance of the RfC better than the person who posted it, and statistics better than me. This total lack of appropriate intellectual humility is what's embarrassing. (If you were invoking source of any kind in place of "obvious", "basic" deductions, for example, you would look less foolish.)
You didn't defend MQ, you pseudo-defended it: someone else made a negative comment about it, and you objected to their negative comment. (If someone calls Idi Amin evil and a second person says "How dare you say such a terrible thing about someone?" they haven't strictly speaking defended Amin. It's still a bad look.) --JBL (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 13

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (February 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 13th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

I hope everyone is having a great year so far! --DannyS712 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for creating File:NPP_flowchart.svg

A few years ago, I decided to volunteer as a new page reviewer. I navigated my way through a maze of documentation, reading everything I found there. I did find a flowchart, but it was useless for any practical purpose. But now, I see you have created a flowchart that guides a reviewer through the entire process.

I haven't yet decided whether to stand in front of the hose. And I will not respond well to any pressure. But if I do volunteer, my decision will be entirely due to my awareness of the existence of your flowchart. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, We also need help at the back of the queue. :) I personally just try to keep up with the Userbox below (on average), and honestly if we get a bunch of people doing that, we will be able to control the influx pretty handily. Glad to hear that the flowchart is helpful, I even find it helpful when I get stuck reviewing! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This user has taken the pledge to review 2 new pages a day. Help us bring the queue to 0!



New page review

  1. Thanks for inviting me. I’ve applied. Mccapra (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    Mccapra, Welcome to the team! Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  2. Thanks for the invite. I prefer to create new articles and improve articles for now. There is also a lot of short description work. BTW, I love your flow chart. However, you keep doing an awesome job. SWP13 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    SWP13, Thanks! You also keep up the good work you do elsewhere, that list on your user page is impressive. :) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New page patrol

I had a little message from you a while back about joining the new page patrol, I just wanted to know how big the list is, I am also not sure how to navigate to the list either! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, The list is at Special:NewPagesFeed. There are currently 7600 articles waiting to be reviewed. Have a look at the tutorial and check the granting conditions. You can apply for the user right here when you are ready. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 14

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (March 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 14th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP violations

At this point, I think that NightHeron needs to be reported at WP:AE for his pattern of BLP violations. His comment here is at least the fifth or sixth time he's called Rindermann a white supremacist, even though the source he's citing doesn't call Rindermann that. In this comment, he indicated that he interprets the lack of administrative action for this behavior as an indication that the behavior is acceptable: "After I learned of the accusation by chance, I was able to defend myself, and nothing came of it." If this is his attitude, he's very unlikely to stop without some sort of action.

He was given the required discretionary sanctions notification on 24 January. I would report him myself, but it apparently isn't possible for unregistered users to make AE reports, so I have to recommend the idea to a registered user instead. Would either you user:Literaturegeek consider making a report? I can help with collecting diffs if necessary, since the behavior at issue extends back several months on the article's talk page. 2600:1004:B12C:16E5:BDFF:3E49:E5B:E995 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you aren't interested, I'd appreciate you letting me know, so that I can try asking someone else. 2600:1004:B118:7118:E19C:3D92:B7F0:F5A0 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, he's struck the most egregious comments. ANd he hadn't made any further BLP vios following the previous warnings, so I don't think there is anything actionable here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't shake the feeling that the only way the current issues will be resolved is with an ArbCom case. In this AE report, several admins argued that that this is what's needed; see the comments by User:In actu especially. But the closing admin didn't include opening a case as part of their decision. 2600:1004:B167:8D2A:68F1:5069:EA1A:D617 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There does appear to be quite a bit of disruption on that page. That's one of the pitfalls that comes with editing as an IP, that you will get caught in semi-protection. I'm not in any hurry to start any arbcom case, and I don't think there is any reason to do so at this time. Lets wait for a close on the RfC. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You're more optimistic than I am if you think the RFC is going to resolve anything meaningful. There are approximately equal number of votes in each direction, so the only way to determine the consensus is by examining the arguments and sources being presented, and the longer the discussion there gets, the less likely it is that the closing admin or admins are going to be willing to do that. (Although I think SilkTork would have been willing.) It might be prudent to think about what could produce a long-term resolution to the conflict, rather than just an outcome that will kick it back to the article talk page. Before NightHeron transferred it to FTN, it had been churning on the article talk page since December. 2600:1004:B167:8D2A:68F1:5069:EA1A:D617 (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles Pang Meng and Liu Yong (Xin dynasty)

Hello Insert clever phrase. I just saw your message on my talk page and I just added some book references for 2 articles on people who lived in China's Han dynasty. There are some issues that make it difficult. First of all, there are multiple instances of Chinese people with the same or similar names. Sources cannot be guaranteed to refer to a particular individual. Secondly, all Google-related websites and Wikipedia itself are banned inside China (I am outside, by the way). Please assess them if you have time.Jackson767 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Change

Suggestion: Change “hypocrites“ to, “which I think is hypocritical” or similar, as it sounds a little angry or possibly a personal attack.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, I don't care. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough :-). Sorry to intrude.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, To be more clear: Anyone who supported a three-admin close before but is OK with a single-admin close now that it landed in their favour is a hypocrite. Plain and simple. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand your annoyance and reasoning here re. hypocrites. Maybe after this we can find less dramatic science and pseudoscience articles to edit where we are not compelled to distort academic research.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, No shit. I prefer working at new page patrol in any case than emotionally charged discussions. I stumbled on that one by mistake... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please self-revert 1RR-violation at Race and intelligence

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NightHeron (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, Excuse me? I don't see a 1RR notice on that page's talk page. Please seek consensus on the talk page for changes to the lead, per WP:BRD. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
When you edit the article Race and intelligence the first line of the box that comes up says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." NightHeron (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Now that you know that your revert violated the page protection, why haven't you self-reverted? NightHeron (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
There is WP:NODEADLINE. You, insertcleverphrasehere, should self-revert and raise your concerns with ArbCom case review request here: wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence. The RfC set aside Wikipedia policies such as no original research and due weight. I do not think there is a source for NightHeron’s edits which is why you reverted but NightHeron is simply implicating the results of the RfC. Again, you should self-revert and follow the link to the the ArbCom review and give a carefully considered comment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Literaturegeek: Thanks for posting that link. I'm relieved that someone has finally requested arbitration, and I wouldn't have noticed that request if you hadn't mentioned it. 2600:1004:B14F:A9BF:37:3B4A:BC6F:CB5D (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I was pointed here, and thought I would drop a note as a courtesy, but it's an editnotice and the talkpage posting is only a suggestion per WP:DS#Page_restrictions. Obviously I have no input over what was reverted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, Strange that there isn't a talk page notice. I looked for one after seeing this message. I obviously wasn't aware that 1RR was in place (I've not edited the page before). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please strike

Please strike even by your standards in your message to NightHeron. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I clarified the statement. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 15

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (April 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 15th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Miscellaneous

Hope everyone stays safe. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive_16&oldid=1079170146"