User talk:QEDK/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Prespa Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and it can be directly attributed to you, QEDK. You stepped up to join the closing panel when no one else would, and that is something which was massively appreciated by all of us who helped draft that RFC. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC) |
35mm film
You closed the RFC at Talk:35mm movie film as "moved" as if you had carried out the move. But you haven't. SpinningSpark 10:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SpinningSpark: The page is move-protected, I have asked the protecting administrator to move or unprotect it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A message from Qono
Hi there! Thanks so much for closing the remaining RfC at the List of Photographers talk page. I would like to ask for some clarity around your closing statement.
"Fails" as the overall consensus determination is unclear, since that section is posed as a question and not a proposal. If there is no consensus, maybe it should read "No consensus", or, if you feel there is a consensus, "Citations not a requirement" or "Citations prohibited", to be more clear. Furthermore, "there is no requirement" suggests that there is still no prohibition to citing sources. If that is the determination, it may be helpful to be explicit about that as well. Depending on your view of the discussion and Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you might say:
- Unless required by WP:LISTVERIFY, nationality, date of birth, and date of death should not be cited if that information is in the entry's corresponding article. (A general prohibition.)
- Unless required by WP:LISTVERIFY, it is not necessary to use reliable sources to cite nationality, date of birth, and date of death information, but neither is it prohibited. (Still allows for citing sources).
Also, are we saying that the citation is not required if the statement is merely in the entry's article, or does it also need to be cited in the entry's article to not be a requirement?
Finally, I'm concerned that your closing statement runs contrary to established Wikipedia policy of no original research (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). That policy states that the best practice is to make "each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." As WP:CLOSE states, "Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." Furthermore, it seems to run contrary to the closing statement in another section of this RFC, which says "The consensus is that if a source is deemed reliable, there should not be a limit on how many times it is used." Clarifying in your closing statement how your summation is not in opposition to this statement or to Wikipedia policy of "No original research" would be helpful.
Your help clarifying these points is appreciated. Qono (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Qono: I closed it as a "no consensus". Simply put, the premise of the proposal has failed, so we cannot say that the opposite of the proposal is the status quo, which is what
not required
means. It does not imply that the new consensus is a prohibition, but simply that the consensus is not to mandate it. When you saycitation is not required if the statement is merely in the entry's article, or does it also need to be cited in the entry's article to not be a requirement
, you are drawing a reverse conclusion from my close that there needs to be a corresponding entry page stating the same, but that is not what the consensus or closing statement implies. I have removed the "unless required by LISTVERIFY" part since it isn't necessary and muddles up my summary of no consensus. Status quo is maintained, afterall. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I think this is much closer, but would benefit from an explicit stating of your interpretation of the question as a proposal to require citations. I might suggest "This proposal to require citations does not have a consensus to pass." This puts the following sentence into context, which reinforces what I think is your determination.
- Also, your addition of "status quo stands" is unclear. The status quo of not having citations for this information? What status quo exactly? Qono (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was typing this as we conflicted, as for clarification regarding WP:OR, the "best practice" is sourcing every statement, and it would run contrary to the guideline set in WP:LISTVERIFY (and correspondingly, WP:MINREF), so how are two contradictory policies existing at the same time? The simple explanation is to exercise common sense. The current consensus does not mandate a usage, so the status quo is to not mandate it. That is what status quo stands means. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Not to reargue this, but I don't think WP:OR and WP:LISTVERIFY are in conflict. WP:OR recommends citing everything you can, WP:LISTVERIFY requires citation in certain cases.. These recommendations are not contradictory, WP:LISTVERIFY just takes WP:OR another step to require a citation in certain cases. WP:LISTVERIFY doesn't prohibit citations outside of those situations (a reverse conclusion, as you put it).
- Either way, your review is much appreciated, and likewise to any clarity around these issues—and those already stated—that you can add to the closing statement. Qono (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, closes can be vague, humans are fallible, no problem with doing my due diligence. I have clarified further in my closing statement to say that there is no mandatory requirement but best practices per policies (i.e. NOR, and LISTVERIFY guidelines) is to source statements wherever they appear. Just to again put things in order, I never said or implied citations are prohibited, but that they are not explicitly mandated, as there isn't a consensus for it to be. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the confusion is that the question "Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?" does not word it as a requirement, but your closing statement treats it as such. The original question only asks if that information should generally be cited. It sounds like your closing is "Yes, this information should be cited per WP:NOR and WP:LISTVERIFY, but it is not a requirement unless it meets WP:MINREF." That, to me, is an endorsement, but that red X and saying that the statement "doesn't pass" sounds like a disagreement. Does that make sense? Qono (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ahh, that is right indeed. I did operate under the conclusion that the proposal was making it a requirement, but given that the status quo is to not mandate it, and only stated as best practices, I think I should clarify that again. The result of no consensus here does seem to be a endorsement of the proposed question, I've closed it accordingly, still as no consensus ofcouse, but clarifying the status quo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Appeal
Shouldn't my appeal be on ANI? John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Appeals aren't made at ANI (I clearly stated AN in my closing statement), in addition, you're presently banned from making any new sections at ANI. FWIW, I moved your appeal for you. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for that. What about Arbitration Committee? Shouldn't I appeal for them, as I see that community clearly don't like me and refuses to explain its position? John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bans placed by the community can only be appealed to the community. And again, if it was a mistake, there's no need to apologize. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Strange rules. Community can ban anyone it doesn't like and it is not possible to appeal for the ones that you expect to do deeper investigation. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's logical, community bans are placed by the community for a reason and reassessment of such a ban should also be done by the community. I am confident filing a case at ArbCom will result in harsher consequences than a topic ban, and that's just my two cents. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Strange rules. Community can ban anyone it doesn't like and it is not possible to appeal for the ones that you expect to do deeper investigation. John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bans placed by the community can only be appealed to the community. And again, if it was a mistake, there's no need to apologize. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for that. What about Arbitration Committee? Shouldn't I appeal for them, as I see that community clearly don't like me and refuses to explain its position? John Francis Templeson (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- DRN discussion on the Iraqi Turkmen article, involving me, is still going on. What should I do. It is already under the consideration. John Francis Templeson (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've informed people at the DRN of your topic ban. I don't think anything else is needed. As far as you're concerned the DRN discussion no longer exists since it seems to be clearly covered by your topic ban. BTW, the logical part is always why it's pointless appealing so soon. Discretionary sanctions and other admin imposed measures can sometimes be reversed when others look into the details. If the community has just decided to ban you, it's exceedingly rare you're going to get a different outcome from the same community unless you present substantial new evidence or the discussion period was too short. (Substantial new evidence means something you've just uncovered no one saw before, not trying to convince people their interpretation was wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- As Nil Einne said basically. You are prohibited from participating in the DRN discussion, per the terms of your topic ban. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- But it will continue without me, so it won't be closed, yes? John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- As Nil Einne said basically. You are prohibited from participating in the DRN discussion, per the terms of your topic ban. --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've informed people at the DRN of your topic ban. I don't think anything else is needed. As far as you're concerned the DRN discussion no longer exists since it seems to be clearly covered by your topic ban. BTW, the logical part is always why it's pointless appealing so soon. Discretionary sanctions and other admin imposed measures can sometimes be reversed when others look into the details. If the community has just decided to ban you, it's exceedingly rare you're going to get a different outcome from the same community unless you present substantial new evidence or the discussion period was too short. (Substantial new evidence means something you've just uncovered no one saw before, not trying to convince people their interpretation was wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Purely out of interest - azerbaijani
Not that it has any direct relevance, but I was wondering if you could explain what is happening that is involving the likely removal of all Azerbaijani-wiki admins? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Long story short, misuse of admin rights. A lot of azwiki admins function in cabals, through Facebook and WhatsApp groups and there is barely any transparency, letting copyvios exist amok, you name it. There's more detailed information at meta:Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow! And to think editors here call admins power-hungry - our en-admins need to go take lessons in cabal-building. Very disturbing Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- No one tell him about The Penguin Cabal. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Particularly damaging as they feed off being trouted! Nosebagbear (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- No one tell him about The Penguin Cabal. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow! And to think editors here call admins power-hungry - our en-admins need to go take lessons in cabal-building. Very disturbing Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello QEDK,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
SPI case
Dear administrator, I think you should rethink the decision of declining CU for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lechuzaj. Because, today (May 20) one more account Malayalammojo was created, Lucifer Movie was blocked only the day before (May 19). The description in the user page itself suggest it's an offensive account and does BLP abuse, calling producer Antony Perumbavoor as "Thallu Perumbavoor", it was the same Malayalam abuse word added by Lechuzaj and Lucifer Movie in his article, also "MUZHUVAN NADAN" is another abuse word intended at actor Mohanlal. Also says "DONT ARGUE ON SOME SIMPLE REASON AND DONT BLOCK ME LIKE A *******". So definitely this user has been blocked before, and is also abusing (hidden word) the blocking admin. The user also sounds very much like Hackerwala111 because of the description I am here to give edits and give summary on Malayalam movies.... Not be online every time but try my best to be here, Hackerwaala had it too [1]. The person is a blind fan of Malayalam actor Mammootty and has strong antipathy to Mohanlal who has higher box office successes. What the person desperately trying to accomplish is diminish the box office numbers of Mohanlal movies and exaggerate it in Mammootty film pages by vandalising the pages. Recently it is very high and various accounts are being created. 137.97.164.152 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the fact that Malayalammojo seems to be a sock of Hackerwala111 (Mhdsuhail sockmaster) but I disagree that the Lechujaz group is a splitoff from Mhdsuhail's group. Malayalammojo's edits are much less vandal-like than Lechujaz imo, I will endorse a CU to check any connection between the groups but the two socks on the SPI are definitely the same and determinable without a CU. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Marked Unicornblood2018 as blocked instead of banned
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I marked Unicornblood2018 as blocked instead of banned, since I apparently misread the way 3X works as per your closure on AN. Let me know if I made a mistake! Thanks. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- No worries! In this particular case, 3X cannot apply as there is no CU confirmation of the accounts, since the editor is using IPs to evade their block. Fwiw, it's clear the editor is WP:NOTHERE and this indef might as well stand as a ban. On that note, I made a slight mistake in my 3X explanation (it is strictly two occassions of CU confirmed sockpuppetry after an initial indef block), which I've fixed now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, glad to hear everything is alright! Even if the indef block stands as a ban, I think it would best to mark as blocked unless a community consensus develops or he obviously starts sockpuppeting with real accounts. Since that hasn't happened, I think the best option is to just Revert, Block, Ignore unless the behavior gets worse. Thanks! Rockstonetalk to me! 20:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply
You need to understand stuff, better and assume that I have enough common sense, to not revert a CU-tagging. I was inclined to revert BHG's addition to the template, that adds such a garish box in certain cases. ~ Winged BladesGodric 12:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted myself when I realised that was not what you meant. As for reverting BHG, I have no opinion, exercise your discretion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
did I do something wrong here?
Hey, qedk! Did I do something wrong here? --valereee (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted and accidentally removed a part of your edit while resolving it. My bad! I've restored it for you.
-qedk (t 桜 c) 11:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Canadian Politics Arbitration Case
If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
ACC tool access request approved
Thank you for your interest in the account creation process. I have verified that you have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and approved your request.
You may now access the interface here. Before you begin handling any requests, please ensure you have read and understood the account creation guide and username policy to familiarize yourself with the process.
Please subscribe yourself to the private ACC mailing list by clicking here and following the instructions on the page. I also highly recommend that you join us on IRC. We'll be able to grant you access to our private channel (#wikipedia-en-accounts connect), where a bot informs us when new account requests arrive, and where you can chat with the other members of the team and get real-time input, advice, and assistance with requests and how to handle certain cases that are giving you confusion or trouble.
Please note that repeatedly failing to correctly assess and process account requests and take the correct resulting actions will result in the suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Processing account creation requests is not a race, and each request should be handled with your utmost diligence, care, and attention. Closing each account request correctly, accurately, and within full compliance of the ACC tool guide is your goal and your priority; never sacrifice accuracy and compliance of policy in exchange for quantity, or to close a high number of requests that are in the queue.
Releasing any kind of nonpublic personal data (see access to nonpublic personal data policy), such as the IP addresses or email addresses of account creation requests, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is treated as an extremely serious violation of policy and breach of confidential information, and will generally result in immediate suspension of your access to the ACC tool interface. Depending on the severity of the offense, the intent, and the level of misconduct that occurred, the violation and the breach of the confidential information will be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation, which can result in further sanctions and actions being taken against you (such as being blocked, banned, or having your access to nonpublic personal data status revoked). If you have questions about this or aren't sure about anything in regards to this policy, please ask a tool administrator.
Your current user rights allow you to create up to six accounts in a 24 hour period. After this limit has been reached, you won't be able to create any more accounts. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator after you've demonstrated experience and proficiency with processing and handling new account requests.
Since I noticed that you have IBPE, you cannot create accounts from a range that is blocked with the account creation disabled option set, even with IPBE.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me or any other ACC tool admin if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process, and we're glad to have you as part of the group! Welcome to the ACC tool user team! — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Autopatrolled?
I saw Matthew hk marked NVPA8200 as reviewed. I thought that was weird, but then I looked at your user rights. I noticed that you are not an autopatroller. You seemed to have created 12 articles (thus not meeting the suggested minimum qualifications). Is there any way I could convince you to Run for Adminship? It'd help reduce the WP:NPP backlog, and we all get a great admin out of it! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Interestingly, "autopatrolled" is the only right I have on other two wikis (what do ya know?) As for an RfA, I really appreciate you asking me to run, but given the feedback from my last ORCP (in September) and just my instinct, I do not think the community will vote for a candidate like me, notwithstanding the gruelling process an RfA can be. Thanks for asking me though, it's not often that people do, so yeah, I appreciate it. And who knows, maybe I'll run someday, afterall. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- So I just read all of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 11. You had the second almost amount of support in the entire page.
September was almost 8 months ago, so I am sure the support would have increased by now. Taking a look at your stats, you have made nearly 8 times the amount of contributions you made in the month of September before this month has even fully finished. It's certainly time for at least another poll! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)- To be honest, I like ORCP, people are to the point and factual and I actually get to know my drawbacks, it's a good sort of criticism, and I appreciate that. Since you're asking, I'll certainly try for a poll, probably next month. And again, thanks a lot for the vote of confidence. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- So I just read all of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 11. You had the second almost amount of support in the entire page.
Speedy deletion declined: Jennifer Mercieca
Hello QEDK. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jennifer Mercieca, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims in article and more than 2000 GNews hits indicate that she might be significant. Take it to WP:AFD instead please. Thank you. SoWhy 07:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: There is something weird going on, I checked the GNews hits and literally all of them have the same
Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political discourse and co-editor of “The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama...
statement. On further opening the link, the given article has nothing to do with the professor. Two more sources repeatexplains Texas A&M communications professor Jennifer Mercieca, author of a forthcoming book on Trump's rhetoric.
which are opinion pieces and not the news organization themselves. My point is, the majority of the 2000 GNews hits are fake, you can check it yourself as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)- That might very well be the case. However, A7 is not the venue to check that. If there is a chance that at least some of them are real, it merits further investigation and discussion. As such, I did not intend to signal that I believed her to be significantly notable or having sufficient coverage, just that this might be the case. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Dustin Skinner, QEDK.
Barkeep49 has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:
Unreviewing an article tagged for speedy deletion
Please contact Barkeep49 for any further query. Thanks.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm mildly confused, Barkeep49. Are you saying tagging for deletion after seeing page content does not count as a review? --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- QEDK, I am saying that because speedy deletions are sometimes declined it's generally considered standard practice to not mark speedy deletions as reviewed - these articles often need some other form of deletion when a speedy deletion is declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I watch the pages I mark for deletion and I've always marked them as patrolled since I have a good hunch they will be deleted. IMO, patrolling them is only fair since other reviewers don't need to see it again after I have and I tagged it for deletion, for example, I retagged the article only because you didn't patrol it but it would as well be deleted without me having reviewed it. Anything wrong with my logic? --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- When I'm doing patrolling I can choose whether I want to see articles nominated for deletion or not - if I choose to include that in my feed it's not a waste of my time to see it. Bigger picture it goes against the consensus developed last time NPP had the conversation. If you think this should be changed, fair enough, perhaps start a new conversation about it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I watch the pages I mark for deletion and I've always marked them as patrolled since I have a good hunch they will be deleted. IMO, patrolling them is only fair since other reviewers don't need to see it again after I have and I tagged it for deletion, for example, I retagged the article only because you didn't patrol it but it would as well be deleted without me having reviewed it. Anything wrong with my logic? --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- QEDK, I am saying that because speedy deletions are sometimes declined it's generally considered standard practice to not mark speedy deletions as reviewed - these articles often need some other form of deletion when a speedy deletion is declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Chi Alpha Campus Ministries
How is this vandalism? These are constructive edits. Pleses specifiy??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.18.34 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- The diffs didn't render fully, so it looked like you removed the main infobox and not an unrelated subinfobox. I've reverted myself and reinstated your edits. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you 68.33.18.34 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Template editor granted
.svg){kind=icon}
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
- Useful links
- All template-protected pages
- User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice of arbitration
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
SPI help
I just filed a report at SPI solely to document continued sockpuppetry by User:Rameezraja001. Since the known named account and active IP are already blocked, I have recorded that and marked the report for closing. I don't know how well the SPI bots will work with such a sequence of quick opening and closing of a report. Can you please take a look and ensure that the report is archived? Let me know if there is anything I should do, or should have done, to make the process work. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Looks pretty great actually! I've tagged the master and archived the case. The bot only checks for transclusions of the template,
{{SPI case status}}and the current status it holds, so it is not that easy to break the bot, I'd think. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Problem with your sig on AN
Hi, your sig in the "Ban the WMF account" thread at AN seems to be forcing black font for the text which follows it. This renders that text invisible to users of the "green on black" gadget. Please could you fix it? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I closed three <font> tags with </span> tags and I didn't realize (the WMF syntax highlighter didn't tell me I was wrong either!). But yeah, definitely my bad, I've fixed my signature. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you still need to edit your sig 'as it appears in the thread, as it still forces the black text. DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- And it's still doing it here. I can't read my reply to you without opening the edit window. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You tell me, I'm not sure what I can do anymore. Are you sure there's no bug in the highlighter itself? --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Signature_forcing_black_text. As it seems to be only your signature that is causing the problem, I doubt it's a fault in anything else. DuncanHill (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You tell me, I'm not sure what I can do anymore. Are you sure there's no bug in the highlighter itself? --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Your edit conflicted edit here lost some intervening revisions (removed one edit and restored removed text). You may already be aware, but letting you know. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- The new edit conflict resolver showed nothing, so I assumed I was good to go. I have reinstated the edits, thanks for letting me know. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
speedy deletion questions Afforest
Hello QEDK, I got your message about the Afforestt page. I made that page the best I could and while it still needs edits, I was hoping you would give me some pointers on how to make it better so it doesn't get flagged. Thank you Magenta2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magenta2018 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Magenta2018: What I recommend is that you ask the deleting administrator to restore it to your userspace so that you can make it into a proper article. The way the article is written, it reads like an advertisement for the company. You might want to read our conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies. Are you affiliated with the company, in a paid or unpaid capacity? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CEN listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CEN. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CEN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lucapratt04
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lucapratt04 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: Wikimedia Belgium concerns about WMF
No offense taken. From the first I saw it was a failure on my part to be clear. (A problem I am forever struggling with, & one I hope to solve before I die.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hi. Did you look closely at these edits [2] [3] to verify that they were indeed vandalism? I'm going to be charitable and assume you made a mistake. Please be reasonable and consider reinstating these edits, or at least revoking the warnings you issued. Many thanks. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- In regards to edit 1, do not remove references. In regards to edit 2, do not exercise WP:OR and decide what is a misconception and what is denialism. Since it can be construed to be a misconception as well, it cannot be called a denialism even if you feel like it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't remove references, I removed specific instances of them. Why is it necessary to specify the exact date, especially since it is uncertain? "Misconception" has connotations of "honest mistake", and creationism is specifically mentioned as form of denialism in that article. It is surely your original research that Young Earth Creationism counts as a "common misconception" rather than a religious belief that is at odds with science. In any event the age of the earth does certainly not belong under the section "Biology". 86.28.158.33 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but it can also be both, but by removing it from a list of misconceptions because you think it is a denialism exhibits your biased POV and extends to original research. So, no, to clarify it for you again, it is not accurate to remove it because you feel like it. As for the other edit, if reliable sources are conflicting, list the conflicting information with the references and leave the reader to decide, removing instances of references and references are detrimental to the article. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- The first source mentions creationism but doesn't assert its falsity. The other two assert the age of the Earth but never mention creationism. Listing Young Earth Creationism as a "common misconception" in this way is paradigmatic original research. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Stop finding other reasons now that your primary argument is done with. I do not understand how difficult it can be to accept YEC as a misconception, and I do not understand why you keep arguing about it, see here and here. How can you reasonably say that people holding these fictional ideas are all deniers? The answer is you can't. So, stop making POV edits and wasting my time. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- The first source mentions creationism but doesn't assert its falsity. The other two assert the age of the Earth but never mention creationism. Listing Young Earth Creationism as a "common misconception" in this way is paradigmatic original research. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but it can also be both, but by removing it from a list of misconceptions because you think it is a denialism exhibits your biased POV and extends to original research. So, no, to clarify it for you again, it is not accurate to remove it because you feel like it. As for the other edit, if reliable sources are conflicting, list the conflicting information with the references and leave the reader to decide, removing instances of references and references are detrimental to the article. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't remove references, I removed specific instances of them. Why is it necessary to specify the exact date, especially since it is uncertain? "Misconception" has connotations of "honest mistake", and creationism is specifically mentioned as form of denialism in that article. It is surely your original research that Young Earth Creationism counts as a "common misconception" rather than a religious belief that is at odds with science. In any event the age of the earth does certainly not belong under the section "Biology". 86.28.158.33 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CEN is now open!
To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello QEDK,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
Hi. Would you mind explaining your reasons for this revert (which added, according to me, nothing but WP:INDISCRIMINATE details) with something more than a blanket template? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe our reading of INDISCRIMINATE is different, but the entire text you removed was sourced and not all of it was not relevant to the article. If you could glean the article of indiscriminate material without also removing contextual information, that would be fine by me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- My reading of INDISCRIMINATE is that information is not always appropriate even if there is a source for it: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."; mere listings of which jerseys of years gone by teams have been worn during the season seem to fail by this since there is no reliable commentary; an article like "The Reds will have 15 throwback uniforms in 2019". MLB.com. [which only lists "some highlights" and doesn't provide commentary of any kind] does not seem to be sufficient "context", and seems to sustain my point that, at best, it's trivia which is of interest to a very limited audience. Some other articles do seem to provide commentary, ex. "Fresh powder: Cards unveil vintage blue jersey". MLB.com.; but then once you look at it the article is not from an independent source (since it's the MLB website, but minor issue, in any case it probably is enough of a WP:RS to use as a source) and it seems to deal with a very specific topic; it should better go in a section about the uniforms of the specific team, rather than an article about a whole MLB season (since the change of uniform has very little bearing on the MLB season, right?). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since your edit has been reinstated by another editor (no comment on the editor), I believe explaining my viewpoint would be moot. G'day. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I was not aware of you being a regular and that was an oversight due to using a semi-automated tool. However, I do concur with the other editor in the fact that it was not vandalism (for which I was going to remove the template but I saw that you already removed it). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since your edit has been reinstated by another editor (no comment on the editor), I believe explaining my viewpoint would be moot. G'day. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- My reading of INDISCRIMINATE is that information is not always appropriate even if there is a source for it: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."; mere listings of which jerseys of years gone by teams have been worn during the season seem to fail by this since there is no reliable commentary; an article like "The Reds will have 15 throwback uniforms in 2019". MLB.com. [which only lists "some highlights" and doesn't provide commentary of any kind] does not seem to be sufficient "context", and seems to sustain my point that, at best, it's trivia which is of interest to a very limited audience. Some other articles do seem to provide commentary, ex. "Fresh powder: Cards unveil vintage blue jersey". MLB.com.; but then once you look at it the article is not from an independent source (since it's the MLB website, but minor issue, in any case it probably is enough of a WP:RS to use as a source) and it seems to deal with a very specific topic; it should better go in a section about the uniforms of the specific team, rather than an article about a whole MLB season (since the change of uniform has very little bearing on the MLB season, right?). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Move review for Thomas Green (died 1506)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Thomas Green (died 1506). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Agricolae (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thomas Green close
I usually don't follow up on closes, but the numbers on which you claim to have based your close here are at variance with the actual votes placed. You said the numbers were 4:2 in favor, and then you disminished the two oppose votes. The actual numbers were 3:3, with three clear oppose votes, objecting to the entire rationale for any move at all (and as such, there was no need for them to weigh in on the alternatives). Your conclusion just does not match the actual discussion. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Agricolae, a requested move is a consensus discussion and not a voting system, so if participants voice preference for alternatives, it is always taken into account. For the actual requested move to "Thomas Green (...relationship...)" there was a consensus against, which I made a note of. Then I proceeded to check for any alternative consensus, which I did find, as there were 4 editors explicitly supporting it. And an opposer which did not make a note of it (but I assumed that as an opposition to all moves) while the other remaining opposer (excepting you, because you supported the alternate) stated "per opposers" which would mean that I as a closer, would assess his opinion based on other opposers, which as I already stated was that the consensus was against the first requested move, but a narrow consensus on the alternative "Thomas Green (died 1506)" and thus solidified my decision on the requested move. I did not dismiss any opposes, only assessed them as they stated it and also provided an explanation as I thought it was necessary. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't need to be told how RfCs work, I need to be told how you counted 'preferences' on this specific one. There were not 4 participants in favor of the move. There just weren't. Roman Spinner was the nom (so that's 1), Necrothesp votted move (that would be 2), and McClog had originally proposed the move and was amenable to any of the move targets (though they didn't vote - that would be three); Agricolae (that would be 1), PBS (that's 2), and Johnbod 'voted' oppose (so that's 3); Operahat made a comment that since there were no other knights on existing pages this "needn't stop the page from remaining where it is" (not sure that this is an oppose, but it certainly isn't a move preference). That is 3:3:1 (or even 3:4). Who is your 4th participant in favor of the move? Of the opposers, PBS cited NATURALness as a reason to keep it where it was. Agricolae (me) argued repeatedly against the move, and Johnbod just said 'as per opposers' (both other opposers said it shouldn't be moved).
- I can't get inside your head, but if you think when I said 'if it absolutely had to be moved these are better targets than the one proposed' that this somehow made me a supporter of the move, you failed to take into account both the contingent way it was expressed and everything else I said in the discussion. So I ask you again, who were your four participants in favor of the new target, and who did you view as opposers? Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I counted your preference in for "Thomas Green (d. 1506)" as an alternative. The 4th participant I considered is you. And you do not need to be hostile, I was only trying to explain my viewpoint to you with proper explanations, not telling you how requested moves work. I also counted in Necrothesp's "Move" comment in as an inherent opposition to the first proposed requested move and the group of "opposers" the last oppose is referring to as it was inherently opposing the primary RM. Again to reiterate, there were atleast 2 specifically opposing any moves (you and PBS) but you cited a possibility to the alternate title and I took it on that merit, since there were atleast 3 other editors supporting that alternate. Hope that explains it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was not intended to be hostile, but it seems like your entire close was based on a complete mischaracterization of my own position. Anyhow, I take it you have no intention of reconsidering? Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Is it mischaracterization to consider your own words to assess consensus? Then, I have to agree that I did mischaracterize you. From how I am seeing it, there is no reason to reconsider, I only posted the consensus I saw. Apologies to have caused a disagreement at all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is a mischaracterization if you ignore things like, "That leaves us replacing a perfectly valid disambiguation with one that is less elegant", and "It is obviously possible to find a different name, but it is unnecessary as the existing name is consistent with guidelines", or "neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change", or for that matter, the qualification that preceded the suggested alternatives. "If, for some reason, this [Sir Thomas Green] is deemed unacceptable . . .". None of this suggests I wanted the page moved. Just to be clear, I opposed moving the page not only in my oppose vote, but on several other occasions in the discussion. My willingness to participate in the discussion of what to do 'if it had to be moved' should in no way have been interpreted as favoring a move. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is not if you explicity state it as a possible alternative right? My job was to assess consensus for that one particular discussion, which I tried to fulfil with my best capacity. I do know that you were against the page move primarily. But given the fact that you did voice an opinion to state an alternate, I took it on that merit, and what I am trying to say is that, your opinion is not mutually exclusive. I have to see all sides of a statement, and to reiterate, since there were atleast 3 more editors supporting the alternate, I took your opinion on its corresponding merit. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I put it forward as an alternative if there had to be a move. There didn't have to be a move. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Don't pick an alternate and revoke your opinion because you did not expect it to change the outcome you primarily wanted. If you did not want any move, say you don't want any move. You cannot say, here's my secondary option and have me automatically forget you said it because you had a primary opinion as well. You don't get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did say I didn't want a move: that is what oppose means. I didn't give a secondary preference, I gave an explicit conditional, and then argued repeatedly (some would say ad nauseum) that the conditional wasn't fulfilled. I am not asking you to forget what I said, I am asking you to read what I said rather than lifting it out of context and forcing it into your own false construct. Anyhow, this has clearly ceased to be a productive exchange. Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was absolutely no false construct, you are justifying your rationale post hoc because you did not like the outcome. I'm going to say what I said before, either state your viewpoint how you want it accurately, or be satisfied with the outcome. In fact, your only point of contention is that I took your Oppose statement, which included alternative viewpoints, on the merit of your alternative viewpoint and I am sure if a contention was made then and you would have a POV towards a move, you would argue this. So, no, just to reiterate, "you do not get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference". And, fwiw, if you want me or anyone else to discount something you stated, don't state it. It's literally as simple as that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- And I will state what I stated before - read what I said, not what you want me to have said. I opposed a move, and I expressed an opinion on the relative suitability of targets (only) were a move to prove necessary. That in no way negates my opposition to a move, and it is ridiculous for you to now argue that I am changing what I said because I didn't like the outcome, while at the same time counting me as in favor of the outcome. You talk about me wanting you to discount what I said, but that isn't it at all. I want you to not discount what I said. I want you to not discount my explicit !vote not to move. I want you not to discount the four other times in the discussion I indicated that the current page name was best, that there was no basis for a move. I want you not to discount when I said that my opinion on the relative suitability of potential targets applied only if the page had to be moved. I want you not to discount that I proceeded to argue for the next week and a half that the page did not need to be moved, thereby rendering whatever should happen if it needed to be moved nugatory. And I want you not to discount that I expressed my opinion on potential targets at the same time I explicitly !voted oppose, not just comment, indicating I did not think a move was called for in spite of there being better targets than the one proposed. I want you not to discount, that I never revoked this !oppose in favor of one of the new targets, in spite of plenty of opportunities to do so, but continued to argue against a move. I want you not to discount any of this, but that is exactly what you are doing. You say if I didn't mean it don't state it, well I did state that my !vote was oppose. I did state four other times that the page shouldn't be moved. I did state that there was a specific condition under which my view on potential targets applied, and I did state repeatedly, that that specific condition (the page staying where it was being unacceptable) was not met. You are ignoring all of that. Someone's position cannot accurately be ascertained by cherry-picking half-a-sentence out of context, you actually have to read the entire sentence (and maybe more). Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was absolutely no false construct, you are justifying your rationale post hoc because you did not like the outcome. I'm going to say what I said before, either state your viewpoint how you want it accurately, or be satisfied with the outcome. In fact, your only point of contention is that I took your Oppose statement, which included alternative viewpoints, on the merit of your alternative viewpoint and I am sure if a contention was made then and you would have a POV towards a move, you would argue this. So, no, just to reiterate, "you do not get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference". And, fwiw, if you want me or anyone else to discount something you stated, don't state it. It's literally as simple as that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- I did say I didn't want a move: that is what oppose means. I didn't give a secondary preference, I gave an explicit conditional, and then argued repeatedly (some would say ad nauseum) that the conditional wasn't fulfilled. I am not asking you to forget what I said, I am asking you to read what I said rather than lifting it out of context and forcing it into your own false construct. Anyhow, this has clearly ceased to be a productive exchange. Agricolae (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Don't pick an alternate and revoke your opinion because you did not expect it to change the outcome you primarily wanted. If you did not want any move, say you don't want any move. You cannot say, here's my secondary option and have me automatically forget you said it because you had a primary opinion as well. You don't get to choose which opinion is played when, only that your opinion exists as a level of preference. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I put it forward as an alternative if there had to be a move. There didn't have to be a move. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is not if you explicity state it as a possible alternative right? My job was to assess consensus for that one particular discussion, which I tried to fulfil with my best capacity. I do know that you were against the page move primarily. But given the fact that you did voice an opinion to state an alternate, I took it on that merit, and what I am trying to say is that, your opinion is not mutually exclusive. I have to see all sides of a statement, and to reiterate, since there were atleast 3 more editors supporting the alternate, I took your opinion on its corresponding merit. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- It is a mischaracterization if you ignore things like, "That leaves us replacing a perfectly valid disambiguation with one that is less elegant", and "It is obviously possible to find a different name, but it is unnecessary as the existing name is consistent with guidelines", or "neither the policy on honorifics nor that on page names dictate such a change", or for that matter, the qualification that preceded the suggested alternatives. "If, for some reason, this [Sir Thomas Green] is deemed unacceptable . . .". None of this suggests I wanted the page moved. Just to be clear, I opposed moving the page not only in my oppose vote, but on several other occasions in the discussion. My willingness to participate in the discussion of what to do 'if it had to be moved' should in no way have been interpreted as favoring a move. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Is it mischaracterization to consider your own words to assess consensus? Then, I have to agree that I did mischaracterize you. From how I am seeing it, there is no reason to reconsider, I only posted the consensus I saw. Apologies to have caused a disagreement at all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was not intended to be hostile, but it seems like your entire close was based on a complete mischaracterization of my own position. Anyhow, I take it you have no intention of reconsidering? Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I counted your preference in for "Thomas Green (d. 1506)" as an alternative. The 4th participant I considered is you. And you do not need to be hostile, I was only trying to explain my viewpoint to you with proper explanations, not telling you how requested moves work. I also counted in Necrothesp's "Move" comment in as an inherent opposition to the first proposed requested move and the group of "opposers" the last oppose is referring to as it was inherently opposing the primary RM. Again to reiterate, there were atleast 2 specifically opposing any moves (you and PBS) but you cited a possibility to the alternate title and I took it on that merit, since there were atleast 3 other editors supporting that alternate. Hope that explains it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Request for Clerk
Idk what is really going on here, but I'd appreciate your expertise on this case request. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit filter helper request
I'd like to inform you of my request for edit filter helper rights, currently at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#EFH for DannyS712 (2). I'm leaving this note because you participated in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 5#EFH right for DannyS712, and per policy I am supposed to notify you of this new request. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for letting me know. I do not intend to participate in the discussion, but you have my luck! --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Move review of Thomas Green
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I've closed the move review of an RM you closed as overturn (Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2019_July#Thomas_Green_(died_1506)_(closed)). I put my rationale there - for what it's worth I don't think that the close was a bad one, but through reading the RM and the move review, saw enough there to overturn as no consensus (at least, for the destination title). I've initiated a fresh discussion at the talk page to see if the editors involved can come to an agreement on a proper destination for this article. Kind regards, Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 15:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks a ton for closing it up. I appreciate you taking the time to go through the entirety of discussions, albeit a decision that basically invalidates mine, but that's how it is. G'day! --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello QEDK,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Your time has come
Barkeep49's new essay about RfA describes you perfectly. A little birdie told me that you've been asked to run before by some decently high profile admins... so when exactly will it be your turn to run? 
Obviously not now during your current computer death problem though –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hahah, that essay does indeed hit home (minus the aspect of actually making it through). Nice to hear from you after a while, I will be returning to editing Wikipedia soon (as soon as Apple rescues me from my predicament 🤷♂️). College and internships have been taking up most of my time as of late, and I've been playing catch-up for the past few months. As for adminship, I'll talk to some people around - let's see (if and) when it will happen. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
A message from Tipkorir
Hi, just wanted to understand why some of my pages are marked for deletion. Help me to improve them as it takes hrs to create themTipkorir (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, @Tipkorir: I know how must that feel, the primary reason why your articles are getting marked for deletion is because they do not meet our general notability guidelines. While Wikipedia is a repository of information, it is not an indiscriminate collection of any information, hence the requirement of guidelines. You should read WP:N to know why that is so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind doing something
Hello QEDK. That recent closure of the ANI thread seems premature, unless you personally plan to take direct action. I did explicitly request some response from at least two editors, and the range of opinions can hardly be said to be extensive. When saying that some legal notice is not important, it does help to have consensus. The summary is also not a helpful conclusion to the topic, IMO. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- You appear to have stepped away from your keyboard for an unknown time (as I'm about to do), so I've undone your closure. Hopefully you understand my concerns. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' notice board
Thanks to WP:3X, I should now think that anyone who has violated the indefinate ban three times should be assumed as community banned; I did not know about the page until it was pointed out in one of your edits yesterday. Iggy (Swan) 08:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not indefinitely banned three times, but found to be sockpuppeting on two instances (must be verified via CU) after an initial indef was placed (for whatever reason). As I said before, 3X is relatively new (introduced via RfC in March 2018), so it's alright to not know it. No worries! --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Striking blocked user !votes
When an editor makes a !vote or comment on some discussion (e.g. XfD, RfC) and later becomes blocked for an issue (e.g. unrelated sockpuppetry), is it policy to strike out their original comments? While I see the rationale for related discussions (e.g. editors making multiple !votes under different socks on the same discussion) and enforcing blocks on attempts to evade a block, it doesn’t seem to make as much sense for unrelated discussions.
Perhaps I’m missing something though. Could you clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BANREVERT and WP:SOCK, editors engaging in sockpuppetry can have all of their contributions subject to reversion (provided they are not good-faith/constructive). Participation in community discussions is limited to editors presently in good standing, which would make banned editors ineligible. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- Both of those policies only describe reverting edits made in violation of a block (i.e. edits after a block) or where socks edit the same page. They don’t seem to cover the scenario that I described, which is why I’m confused. In the past, I’ve certainly seen what appear to be good-faith edits made by editors reverted when they’re later discovered to be sockpuppeteers in unrelated contexts. In those circumstances, wouldn’t the editors have been in good standing at the time of their participation in community discussions? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- From what I've seen and this is more of just observation, if a community discussion is open, then editors not in good standing are eligible to have their votes removed (a common area to see this is RfAs, a lot of votes are removed, not even struck). Since the editor lost their standing in the middle of a discussion, I would guess they are eligible to have their votes struck (a note that Lichinsol was the sockpuppet, Vaibhav was the sockmaster). I am aware that BANREVERT talks about edits in a specific regard but the sockpuppetry policy applies retrospectively from the date of socking — the sockpuppetry does not begin on the block date afterall. This does seem to be a grey area to me as well, although I recommend keeping the vote struck, if you want to reinstate it, I do not mind it as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Both of those policies only describe reverting edits made in violation of a block (i.e. edits after a block) or where socks edit the same page. They don’t seem to cover the scenario that I described, which is why I’m confused. In the past, I’ve certainly seen what appear to be good-faith edits made by editors reverted when they’re later discovered to be sockpuppeteers in unrelated contexts. In those circumstances, wouldn’t the editors have been in good standing at the time of their participation in community discussions? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello QEDK,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 India doctors' strike
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 India doctors' strike you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2019 India doctors' strike
The article 2019 India doctors' strike you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:2019 India doctors' strike for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
AN closure undone
Hi QEDK,
as WP:CBAN requires administrative closure, just like deletion discussions where consensus is for deletion, and as "WP:SNOW" does not seem to apply (minimum duration already exceeded), I have undone the closure (for now?).
Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: My reading of CBAN does not restrict closure to administrators and states that they should enact the resultant blocks if necessary. I understand you read "An uninvolved adminstator..." as a rule to be followed but that seems hardly necessary as it makes no difference at all. Also, given that a consensus was formed that non-admin closures in RfCs should not be overturned simply because it was a non-admin closure passed, the general sentiment of the community is clear. In deletion discussions, administrator closures are necessary because only administators have the technical ability to do so, but non-admins also close AfDs as "speedy-delete/delete" in case the deleting administrator does not close the AfD. Running a process for the sake of process is nothing but a waste of time. It makes no difference to me that you undid the close but as I just said, that's just extending the process for the sake of process. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- I’ve re-closed it; I’m not technically an admin but I play one on TV. (I agree the reference to SNOW was unnecessary.) –xenotalk 13:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- (watching) The bottom line is, we shouldn't close any discussion for which we can't implement the decision. The real waste of time, arguably, is closing a decision which someone else has to come along after you and wrap up. That's duplication, and duplication is generally unnecessary. ——SN54129 13:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This is your periodical reminder you would be a great admin and have a need for the tools. I can get you in touch with some pretty great people who'd make wonderful nominators if you want. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: Hello, it's been a while again, hope you're doing alright! I'll email you with an update shortly, if that's okay. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Moved the other way?
Hi! I think this move went the wrong way. I think the requester wanted the 2016–2017 format, not 2016–17. Perhaps they listed it wrong way around in WP:RMTR? EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now I'm not sure any more. I have left a note for User:Matthiaspaul who is the person who had moved it to 2016–2017 Tour de Ski back in February 2019. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I carried out the request at RM/TR and forgot to remove the request (oops...) where I'm guessing it was contested after the move was already done. The next step is to file a requested move, so I've messaged the contesting editor on his talk and removed the contested technical move request. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi QEDK, in case you haven't seen it there may be some useful material that could be incorporated from meta:Partial block model policy. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why FXTOP.com gets Golden Pass
I notice you revert @Coffee: (talk) changes stating "good-faith edit; revert to allow discussion, since SSP is not supported on the other sites but is being updated real-time on FxTop." What is SSP? (State Supplementary Payment?) If you check historical edits, Mascaraponte removed Transfarmate.com, Tranferwise.com, and Currency.wiki that was contributed by @Anstoyanov: talk, @Tomdavis1: talk and leaving one and only site FXTOP.com along with three existing sources if you check here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Exchange_rate&diff=741280017&oldid=741255268 , what is so special about this site? When checking on mobile, outdated design and not even responsive but loaded with the advertisement. But, it's ok removing credible sources such as Transfermate.com that was founded in 2009 and Transferwise.com founded 2010 both reliable money transfer services and currency.wiki that has no ads and quick conversion plus all 3 sites are fast and responsive when testing. How about you revert changes for all three sites as well, so it's fair.Henryguide (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Henryguide: If you'll see the entire conversation on the talk page of the template, SSP stands for South Sudanese Pound, removing FxTop meant that we could not access current exchange rates for this particular currency, which is not ideal. If you so desire to reinstate the other sites, present a case for the same on the talk page to gain consensus. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I appreciate your prompt reply and clarification. Can you please guide me on which talk page I should present a case to gain consensus and/or can you help me with that? If you test https://transferwise.com/ https://www.currency.wiki/ and https://www.transfermate.com/en/currency-converter.asp, each site has specific principles of excellent UX design and good user experience. Thank you! Henryguide (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Henryguide: You should try seeking consensus at Template talk:Exchange rate. I have no opinion on whether to include the other sites or not, but I'm sure if you present a reasonable use-case, they will be added. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
RFA nom
Your RFA page has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK. You'll need to answer the questions and such. It's still a draft, so there's no hurry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanx
Thanx for the help at ACC today and very good luck on your RfA :) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: Glad to be of help. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!
Was going back to correct this once I'd finished posting on the OP's talk page. Thanks for saving me a job!-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Your input is requested
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: Added my input. Not sure if you mean my piece should be both fun and serious or that the entire piece should have a good mix of fun and serious, but feel free to adjust my write-up any way you like, ofcourse! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's quite good, thank you. I'll do a word count, and tweak if needed, but I doubt I'll have to. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)