User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2023/April

This page 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.

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions

News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI

In the media: Twiddling Wikipedia during an online contest, and other news

Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing

Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid

Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT

From the archives: April Fools' through the ages

Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Black and white

Hello ButlerBlog, I would need your help concerning the following doubt (left a note on the MOS TP of the Project, but no reply, thought you might know for sure); in the case of a film from the 50s and 60s onwards, and even if a still is on the page, is the mention that the film is in black and white really irrelevant? If you have time to drop just a line (here or there, or wherever it's best for you), it would be much appreciated, thanks. Yours,— MY, OH, MY! 00:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: That's an interesting question. The technical nature might be a little out of my wheelhouse, but I would agree that it would appear to be relevant, considering that the 60s are essentially the start of the color era. From an MoS perspective, I'm a little torn. Is there any information in sources about reasons it was done in b&w instead of in color? Keep in mind that what's in the lead is intended to summarize what is in the article, so if it's not discussed in the article, should it be in the lead? By comparison, we do indicate "silent" in the lead sentence for silent films. Your MOS TP post is still fairly fresh, so give it some time. I subscribed to it as well, so we'll see if it gets any traction. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. Italian films of the 1960s seem to have used b&w later and more generally than other countries, I think, but it was not (at least in the case of Fulci's film(s)) as much a stylistical choice than a budget or technical limitation (I think, again). I might try to put it in the body of the article if I find a source that says something (of limited scope) about it. But even if it's not an element of style, I think it is an important element of objective description of any film. I would treat it as silent/sound, personally, except when it's obvious/default; and put it in the LS. But you're right, let's see what other users think. Thank you again. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: Doesn't look like your question has gotten any traction, unfortunately. But I think that ultimately, based on the time period involved it may make sense to include black and white as relevant (at least that's my opinion). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have inserted the category but I might reinsert the info in the Intro because I think it makes sense. Yours, — MY, OH, MY! 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet Another Twelve Tribes Communities Removal

Hi,

I noticed you removed my edit to the 12 tribes communities page where I mentioned and cited that governments have referred to this group as a cult in investigations. I stated it factually and it was removed. The removal edit’s summary claims that since it’s a primary source it can’t be used. I’m confused. Are you saying that if a government agency puts out a report and calls a group of cult that we can’t cite it here unless another media organization repeats what the government says? News reports are always paraphrasing and are never verbatim what a government document would say and so it would seem to be a more reliable source to reference the actual government document. The edit I made was not to say that they are a cult but it was only to say that governments have claimed they are a cult and so it would seem that the actual government source should be the primary source instead of some reporter who read it and wrote a story about it for clicks and ratings.

This is a very odd removal in a very odd “justification” for removal. 50.224.80.190 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this is specific to the article, the discussion should have been done there, not here. There are two significant problems with what you added. First, the lead is not a place to add new ideas. The purpose of the lead is to summarize what is in the article. Refer to WP:LEAD. Second, and more importantly, adding a primary source is essentially "original research," which we do not do here. Refer to WP:OR. There is a time and place for primary sources, but this was not one of them. This article is essentially a WP:BLP, so it has to be done right. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person [or group]. The problem with public records such as this is that it lacks context, and you can't provide context without resorting to original research. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please post a guideline on their talk page for when people should post something about them on their page, on their page, on the articles page? Looking at history it seems like there’s a lot of this stuff where there’s complaints over people posting something on the wrong talk page. Personally I try not to be overly sensitive but I understand.

Secondly a lot of antics about semantics here but how is this a lead? Where can we place this where it would be acceptable to you in the article? What other section do you suggest?

Thirdly, I made no assertions. Only a statement on what some governments have written. The policy you referenced discusses not using primary sources for a living person. It does not say “or group” as was listed by you here in reason for removal. A Twelve Tribes member who eventually got in trouble here after contributing heavily to the article went on record suggesting that the article should be treated as a BLP because they’re a small group. Of course that individual would have bias in making such a suggestion but it seems that now his suggestion is being implemented and it’s a mystery why. Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by unbiased editors.

50.224.80.190 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Anything on wikipedia that discusses living individuals falls under policy for BLPs. That has nothing to do with suggestions/bias from any COI editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

OK and every organization on earth is managed by living people and almost every article on anything mentions at least one living person so I guess BLP applies to every Wikipedia article according to your views? Are you saying that the only way BLP wouldn’t apply to a company, not for profit, government entity, or similar body is if it’s ran by robots or if it’s fictitiously ran by dead people? 50.224.80.190 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s no secret that the 12 tribes Wikipedia article is very biased and heavily influenced by members. I don’t know why we would need yet another slanting of the deck in their favor by claiming since the article discusses people who happen to be alive (almost every article does) that BLP standards apply. Seems rather disingenuous for someone to be parading around here trying to suggest that. 50.224.80.190 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

heavily influenced by members - what are you basing that assumption on? ButlerBlog (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well for starters this user here whom you’ve advised got in trouble for major contributions to the article while they are a member. They’ve since removed mention of that from their top page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timkroehler

Another user here is a member and has pretty much only edited 12 tribes related pages. They’ve only made two other edits that are so minor that one might think that they were made just to feign legitimacy. In peacemaker bus article proposed for deletion page (which seems to no longer be available on Wikipedia), it was noted that this person is a member and has only contributed largely to their articles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gaderperetz

Issues with the Twelve Tribes page was enough to prompt flags and also peer reviews or neutrality reviews it some years ago. Obviously those flags are gone from the page but this doesn’t mean that the effect of the work of the person who did all this is completely gone. It just means that Wikipedia did the best it could to fix it.

There’s enough information and more for those who want to know but never enough for people who don’t want to know. 50.224.80.190 (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no edits by Timkroehler in the past 5 years and only 1 in the past 500 edits on that article. In fact, in their history, they've made a total of 20, some of which was reverted. Granted, it would be better that they not edit it at all, but that doesn't even remotely qualify as "heavily influenced". And the other example you gave as suggesting this article is "heavily influenced by members" hasn't actually made any edits to this article by your own admission.

Contribute productively or move on. Or find a place to edit where you don't have such personal animus clouding your judgment. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey Butlerblog why the personal attack and where is the evidence of personal animus? Could you strike your last comment? Thanks. 50.224.80.190 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For dealing with a particularly annoying type of trolling, thank you very much. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thanks for your very quick action!! I was just about to post to AIV when you had already gotten the user blocked. I only noticed it because I was actually working on an article when the user reverted a quite reasonable edit right in the middle of it (as you noted above). Thanks again! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Butlerblog, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin

Hello, I'm Exeter caravan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Exeter caravan (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Exeter caravan: You're going to need more than a generic reason to revert a well sourced statement. Discuss it on the article talk page why you think that it shouldn't stand. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

(Just for the record, if anything was unconstructive, it was Exeter caravan's editing. Absolutely no worries here.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

also @Exeter caravan is a sock and LTA of Hamish Ross. -- Wesoree ^(T·C) 13:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wesoree: No surprise there! Thanks for the update! ButlerBlog (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate parameters

Hello, the layout of the following TV infoboxes has confused your AWB code and caused duplicate related fields to be added:

It's probably just a localised problem to these articles. - X201 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@X201: I'm not sure what the regex missed in those, but I have corrected them. Thank you for letting me know! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)