User talk:Beetstra
VOTE OPPOSE
No signs that the Arbitration Committee is in any form willing to change for the better (as expected). For years we have been complaining about anchoring, about railroading, about bias. When someone comes before ArbCom, ArbCom has to sanction, no matter how feeble the evidence is. They do not care to properly present the evidence that they make decisions on. They do not care whether the editor has been trying to improve since. And when an editor comes again in front of ArbCom, they will just increase the sanctions - they have been here before so they must be guilty. It is becoming more and more clear that there is no will, nor possibility to improve.1 This institute should be abandoned - NOW |
| |||||
|
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports | |||||
Responding
I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL
There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:
If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources
I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert
I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template). |
|
|
What happened with XLinkBot?
[edit]It doesn't seem to have been active for over 2 years. There was a recent discussion to de-list a site from the blacklist, and I felt that moving it to XLinkBot would be a great next step, but someone pointed out that it hasn't been working in a while. Any chance of resurrecting it? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, would you respond, or point me to where I can learn some history? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry. I have been very inactive for a long time, and most of my bots had a hard time as well. I have resurrected the bot a month ago, seems to be doing fine, even collecting the usual complaints :-). Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's great to know. XLinkBot is a useful tool for sites that need attention but may not necessarily warrant blacklisting. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Curlie/DMOZ
[edit]en:User talk:Beetstra says: Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} but it was recently TfD-ed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_20#Template:Curlie. Polygnotus (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is why it says 'like' :-D. I guess it should be removed, bit out of time by now. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now have a program that uses the eventstream to check when new links get added and filters those edits that (a) are on en.wikipedia.org (b) are not done by a bot (c) are added by someone who made less than 500 edits (d) are not to the top 10.000 most referenced domains on Wikipedia. Did I miss anything? Any other checks I should add? Should I make the program post on Discord/IRC? Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it looks you are doing the same as what m:User:LiWa3 does globally. You may want to look on IRC at it’s stream and it’s friends, COIBot and XLinkBot. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- I now have a program that uses the eventstream to check when new links get added and filters those edits that (a) are on en.wikipedia.org (b) are not done by a bot (c) are added by someone who made less than 500 edits (d) are not to the top 10.000 most referenced domains on Wikipedia. Did I miss anything? Any other checks I should add? Should I make the program post on Discord/IRC? Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Chembot help?
[edit]hey mate, the page for sulfuric acid has a cross symbol for the chembox validation, but i dont understand how to fix it.. what must be done? I also noticed the same for the pages of methanol and acetic acid.. i believe the bot marks the page with an x if any extra text is added to the chembox..
Thanks 120.19.149.247 (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- We should consider to disable all those marks. It was turned out cumbersome to keep track of, and then there was also the integration with WikiData. I think it is better to remove the parameters. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
"Diamondina" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Diamondina has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15 § Diamondina until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
Technical news
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Arbitration
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!