This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nthep. 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.
Thanks for your email. As always, if another admin believes an unblock is justified, that's fine with me, and as you noted it can be reimposed if he doesn't keep his side of the bargain Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and fifty sixth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 16,781 last month to 16,840 on 13 April 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 202 is ahead of WP:GM who have 87. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 80 while WP:GM has 70 out of a total number of 4,650 articles.
Currently we have sixty three Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Delay
Sorry for the delay in publishing this month's newsletter, but I have been out of action without a PC for about 3 weeks. Managed to get it fixed after lockdown eased on 12 April.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered April 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Npthep, please do not revert edits without explanation. Also delete the explanation of those edits, those trying to hide our rationale while giving none yourself. This is vandalism.
As others have already stated you are failing to provide any source that states the donor is the CCP. You are synthesising information to make a supposition. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not state that the source is the CCP, i merely state the address as listed on donor return form, and name the address as per Baidu Maps. Can you read Chinese? Also you keep reverting to the version with an unsourced statement that Wang Zichun is a businessman. What sources state this as a fact please? None. In fact the other referenced article, provided by other users, says in the headline he is a "mystery donor" and further state that "Google and news archive searches do not produce results for this name, suggesting Wang operates under another name." (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mystery-chinese-donor-zi-chun-wang-tops-political-donations-with-850000-gift-to-labor-20150202-133ofe.html)
You are supporting an unsourced synthesis that he is a businessman. I am merely stating has address as given by him, and an explanation of that address, with Baidu Maps source given. Check it wrong. Is 122 Yuhua West Rd Shijiazhuang NOT the Old Cadres Activity Centre?
You might not have done in this edit but in at least of one of the previous edits, you made the synthesis between the donor's address and the CCP. The point of that being what? Why list only the address of this donor? Why not go through the donor return forms and list all the donors' addresses? IMO, you are trying to make a point in contravention of WP:NPOV. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, stating donor as CCP was wrong. The current edit merely states the facts of the donors address. The address makes it significant. Which other donors are located at the address of a CCP owned entity? You are correct that the donor being at this address does not necessarily equal him being CCP. However, no other sources state him as a businessman or anything else. The address is in fact the only clue to his identity, or do you have other information. Either way, previous edits being gone, the current edit stands, unless you can provide material reasons not to state these facts. Suspicion of my intentions not being a material reason. Thank you.
The address is irrelevant and I remain of the opinion that your intention is make the inference (without proof) that the CCP provided funding to the ALP. That is synthesis, pure and simple, and non-neutral. I agree that describing the donor as a businessman is incorrect without a source. Simply stating that a named Chinese donor made an $850k donation (the largest ever to the ALP?) is neutral and factual. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
You claim the address of the donor, as supplied by him, is irrelevant. He's the biggest donor. The address is the only thing known about him. How can that not be relevant? Unless you simply think the donation itself is irrelevant? Is it a problem if people know that the donor's address is the Old Communist Cadres Activity Centre?
The donation is relevant. If it is the largest that that should be sourced. His address and background are only relevant in so much as reliable sources talk about him. As the SMH article doesn't comment on the address also being an address of the CCP then it's not Wikipedia's place to mkae such a connection. If the article said something like "the biggest donation (this needs a citation) ever made to the ALP was made in 2014 when $850k was donated by a Chinese individual named Zi Chun Wang from a Shanghai address; however a least one newspaper (referencing the SMH article) questioned whether the name is real." then I don't have a problem as it's only summarising what appears in the sources. Where I have an issue is by putting the address and that a CCP organisation is also based there (unsourced and no a map is not an acceptable source for this) and using this to infer something that the used sources do not state directly - see WP:SYNTHESIS. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the detailed explanation.
SF Rush / NARL articles
Hi, I've not seen anything anywhere that suggests the NARL SF Rush is the same entity as PRO Rugby's SF Rush. Also, the North American Rugby League article is full of original research. New York RLFC are not going to play at Red Bull Arena anymore for example or apply to join the RFL pyramid, as confirmed by the clubs new ownership group on a recent episode of the Full Eighty Minutes. 2A02:C7F:384A:8E00:F487:DDF4:F7D3:C28A (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the details of what happened to SF Rush after 2016, the club may have folded and this is a new club using the same name (which would be unusual) or the club has kept going through the last 5 years and now decided to change codes. New York had previously intended to join the RFL (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/sports/rugby-league-new-york.html for example] and the clubs own website). If they aren't any more and are not going to play at the Red Bull Arena then edit the articles as appropriate - just make sure you include citations. Nthep (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and fifty seventh WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 16,840 last month to 16,854 on 29 April 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 202 is ahead of WP:GM who have 87. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 80 while WP:GM has 70 out of a total number of 4,654 articles.
Currently we have sixty three Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The May 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered May 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.
Arbitration
The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.
Hi, I have a question about these two revdel requests you declined: $1,000 a Touchdown and Life with Henry. My understanding of the copyright policy is that attribution is insufficient for large quotes (WP:TOP100); Wikipedia:Plagiarism says "Giving credit does not mean the infringement has not occurred, so be careful not to quote so much of a non-free source that you violate the non-free content guideline", which I believe applies to these two requests. I understand that applying the policy varies by editor, but I've been requesting revdels with similar lengths for a while now as part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Koala15 and almost all of them were accepted (e.g. Border Flight, April Showers (1948 film)).
Am I incorrect in interpreting the copyright policy? Should I only request for extremely long (2+ paragraph) quotes instead? Happy to bring the issue up on a project TP if you think there's something wrong going on here and other editors aren't understanding the policy correctly either. Zupotachyon (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zupotachyon: hi. There are two separate but overlapping guidelines here, WP:PLAGIARISM & WP:REVDEL. Your interpretation and application of WP:PLAGIARISM is correct but WP:REVDEL has different criteria. The one applicable in these cases is criterion #1 which relates to Blatant violations of the copyright policy. My opinion in the two examples you have given is that the material was not added in such a way as to be a blatant breach of copyright, the inclusion of fully sourced citations showing open attribution. But that is not the only consideration, WP:REVDEL also says Users should consider whether simply reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances. If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible), and give a clear reason for the removal. If the offending material had constituted the most recent edit(s) and been immediately reverted I almost certainly would have revdel'd the content but there are a number of intervening edits by others and the content of those edits has to be considered as REVDEL will remove the ability to see who made exactly what changes to the articles. This has been the subject of a recent discussion, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Copyvio that persisted for 13 years which while it didn't come to any solid consensus did show concerns about revdel of large numbers of innocent revisions. Balancing the two, my opinion (and I accept that others may have different opinions) was that your removal of the plagiarism was sufficient action in these cases. Nthep (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
As the article ends "Many of Netaji's relatives, friends and followers still disagree that he died in a plane crash". What people want to believe and the facts often conflict. Nthep (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick question... How do you work out the average attendance from the total attendance? As of today, it stands at 33835 with 42 games played, but when I try and divide it by 42, it doesn't seem right. I can't remember how I used to do it –_– lol. L1amw90 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
well that's 805 but it's a fallacy to use that figure. Surely better to use numbers attending divided by the number of games spectators have actually been allowed into? Nthep (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the one hundred and fifty eighth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 16,840 last month to 16,901 on 26 May 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 204 is ahead of WP:GM who have 88. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 81 while WP:GM has 70 out of a total number of 4,664 articles.
Currently we have sixty four Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The June 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered June 2021 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
I'm very concerned by the mass PRODing of American Rugby League articles by User:Mulman82. This account has a long history of disruptive editing and some of the rationales given to apply the PRODs by this user are frankly ridiculous. The one I removed from Ottawa Aces in particular reads as "I don't like it, so I want it deleted" - I feel this is potentially a case of disruptive editing as it's difficult to assume good faith here given the manner of editing and history of disruption. c87d98b1011:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a follow up to the above, the user has begun reinstating PRODs against policy. Another look at the users history suggests that these may be POINTY nominations as before their last block, they had a number of articles they had created deleted. I reaffirm my belief that this editor is only here to disrupt Wikipedia. c87d98b1013:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@C87d98b10 Mulman82 is entitled to his opinions and if he does AFD any of these articles, I will comment on those. Regarding his re-PRODDING various articles, I agree that is borderline disruptive but I would recuse myself from any action under WP:INVOLVED. You've left a warning, let's see if it is heeded. Nthep (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Even though I believe his edits to be disruptive, do you think that I should now remove myself from the equation and let other users handle further PRODs from Mulman82? (I don't want any of my own edits to be perceived as a content dispute!) Cheers c87d98b1015:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
De-PRODDING an article requires no reasons although they are encouraged. Any more re-PRODS and you may want to report them at WP:AIV pointing out that you have warned them against it. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
The Wikipedia Library
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)