Jump to content

User talk:Scorpions13256/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

CCI update

CCI complete

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ardfern is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Thank you for your final work on Ardfern, it was appreciated especially as the case winded down. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!

The Brownie
Congratulations! You have earned The Brownie for reviewing 22 drafts during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia!
On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Scorpions13256. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. 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. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Seddon talk 03:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For clearing up the mess left by Ruigeroeland, you deserve this. Nthep (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

biodiversitylibrary revdel requests

Hi Scorpions, I hope you're well. I've noticed that you have requested revision-deletion of lots of content presumably copied from this source; however, the "info" tab indicates that it is in the public domain (the author died in 1938, so that seems credible), in which case attribution would be sufficient. I haven't declined or actioned any of them in case there is a misunderstanding on my part – am I missing something? Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Amortias who has deleted some of these in the meantime. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
So there was conflicting information on this one (due to what appears to be recent republications of the book and the details regarding reuse from the website linked to as a potential copyvio). Have deleted a few airing on the side of caution but have managed to find confirmation that the latest version of this book would be out of copyright so i'll go and revert those changes. Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs, I was confused for a second, because the book I was looking at was said to have been published in 1930. Try searching the book for "1930" On Discord Premeditated Chaos noticed that some of my redactions were public domain after all. I reverted some of my deletions. I also decided to go back and look at every presumptive deletion I ever made (a task I finished today). I have learned my lesson in the meantime, which is to check the dates more carefully. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware of the Info tab. It seems you are totally right. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Nthep who has carried out most of the redaction requests. Blablubbs please check for revdeleted edits in my last 100 contributions, particularly Antaeotricha cycnomorpha and the species around it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Scorpions13256 To repeat what @Amortias says below, don't worry about it and it's not incompetance. If it turns out some of Ruigeroeland's contributions weren't copyvios then we can restore those. I missed some of these being public domain too. If someone identifies which need restoring and leaves a list here (ping me) or on my talk page, I'll restore the revisions. But look after yourself first, there is no deadline we have to work on here and your health is infinitely more important.
Can someone check if these books were ever published in the US. If not they will still be in copyright in the US, even though they are PD in the UK and won't be PD in the US until 1/1/26. See c:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Works_except_sound_recordings_and_architecture - the section on Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations. Nthep (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have learned my lesson. I was not aware of that info tab. It will come in handy later on. I am about to head to a residential mental health facility for a month to treat my OCD, so my availability might be limited, starting Monday. I plan on checking my edit summaries for RD1 requests, and going through all of them. For the record, my mental health is very severe right now. I am no longer able to complete my final 9 credit hours of college, and I am on SSDI. I am terribly sorry for any trouble. I'm considering a 2 week break. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Blablubbs my understanding is that published works from 1926 and later are copyrighted, while unpublished works are life plus 70 years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Once again, I am terribly sorry about my incompetence. I will fix this as soon as possible. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Amortias Public domain works still need to be attributed. I will do that myself. Again, I am sorry for all the trouble. I thought all of this was published in 1930. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No need to apologise and its no trouble. You found a possible problem, you tagged it as such and then its someone's job to decide it. I managed to find a 2016 reprint of the book, however the fact that the author has been deceased for more than 70 years would have caused the copywrite to lapse. If you find a problem or something you think is a problem please keep flagging it. Someone can then check and advise/action as required. Just because somethings been around for a while doesn't mean its an undetected problem a fresh set of eyes hasn't spotted. I removed the tags but didnt re-add the information (as mentioned attribution should still be in place). Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought published works didn't expire for 95 years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Was Antaeotricha cycnomorpha also incorrectly redacted? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Last comment. Filinota vociferans was definitely incorrectly redacted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I did a search of my edit summaries and put this together. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, Amortias, volumes 3 and 4 of that series were published after 1926, and I can't find any indication from this database that they were ever published in the US. Because of way the URAA works, that means that although they are PD in the UK, they are not PD in the United States. Those revisions should not be restored. The Hirtle chart that Nthep linked above is a helpful visual guide to the complicated stupidity that resulted from the URAA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Blablubbs, Amortias not sure if that ping went through due to the line break error. If it already did I'm sorry for the re ping. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

But if you look at the info section on the source, it says PD. Now, I am confused. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a British site, so they are considering things from the perspective of the United Kingdom's copyright rules, not American copyright rules. Public domain is not universal, unfortunately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
D'oh. You're right. For the record, today's deletions were me going back to "preumptive removals" from earlier and tagging them for redaction. Please bear in mind, I am very anxious right now. I am considering a Wikibreak until I get to Boston. I won't do this until the situation is resolved though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is causing you anxiety, it's the perfect time to take a break. Please, don't stress yourself out about this. The wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that a) basically all mistakes (if any) can be rectified with a simple click, and b) no one person has to do any task, so there is no need to force yourself to do something if it is stressing you out and impacting your mental health. I wish you all the best with your time in Boston :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Premeditated Chaos What do we do about the recent redactions that were declined like Syncopacma syncrita? I made a lot of gnomish edits since then, but I believe the declined redactions were on the same date as the species I linked. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I did the revdel on that one, but to be honest revdels are less of a priority for me as long as no one is trying to re-insert the violating content. As long as it's out, I'm happy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
You are stronger than you realize. Stay true to yourself, be kind to others, and never get stuck in your own head.

I hope you stay active, and I know you have a bright future here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

a Draft you had reviewed

About 6 months ago you reviewed a Draft submitted by another contributor, but your reasons for declining it don't seem clearly denoted there. That contributor's draft was specifically about an easily verifiable geographic location, but your only reason for the declination was apparently because there is already an existing wikipedia article called Cedar Point. However the existing Article about Cedar Point is not about a geographic place. That Cedar Point article is specifically about a business enterprise. And although that business coincidentally exists upon a small area of the Cedar Point geographic location, but Wikipedia guidelines indicate that the geographic location should still have its own separate Article especially because the other portions of the entire Cedar Point geographic location are inhabited residential areas which have no business affiliatation to the Cedar Point amusement park on the non-residential portion. If there were perhaps other reasons for your declination could you please specify them on that declination so that any other issues can be resolved. Otherwise I will simply resubmit that same draft for reconsideration, but I will of course include the above facts along with that resubmision so that reviewers will understand why that geographic entry cannot simply be included within the existing Article about the Cedar Point business enterprise. Thank You. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Cedar_Point_(Lake_Erie) 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I see your concern. The problem is that I live only an hour away from the park. I just assumed that the information would be better suited for the main article. Now that I think of it, I really am unsure if it was right to decline the article because I am not aware of the relevant policy. I would recommend asking someone at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Lastly, the park was founded in 1870, not 1888. Thank you for letting me know. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
If you perhaps have been vested with the authority to do so, it would certainly be quicker if you could now simply accept the draft into Article status. In regard to geographic features, this Wikipedia guideline should suffice, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_feature

Although there are probably additional guidelines which clarify the differences between businesses and strictly geographic sites and the necessity of having disambiguation Articles for overlapping subjects such as in this case. But if perhaps you are not able to transition the Draft to an Article would you please at least include your above statement onto the Draft for other reviewers' benefit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

also I was hesitant to remove that other editor's source about that 1888 year. It seems like a reliable source. But perhaps if the Draft transitions to an Article then maybe other editors can explain that discrepancy.
Note that after perusing that editor's 1889 source versus the 1870 founding, it is difficult to determine if the current enterprise is connected directly to the 1888 Cedar Point Pleasure Resort, or if instead the 1870 operation was a completely different and separate business upon which the current business claims continuation. But the 1888 Cedar Point Pleasure Resort as mentioned in that 1889 source, makes no mention of any prior business there. The obvious conclusion would be that there was more than one resort business originally established at various sites upon that 7 mile long beach area. I am sure that other editors will be able to explain these disambiguations in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I would resubmit the draft and wait for other editors to comment. I am sorry I am not much help. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Per your comment about 1870, I have made a change to the prior editor's statement. Please let me know if the change helps to clarify the discrepancy at least in regard to that part in your own opinion at least. "At the western end is the Cedar Point amusement park, which was officially founded in 1888 by the Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company, at a picnicking site which had become popular by the 1870s." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,806 Ω = 4.92
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For protecting the integrity of biographies of living persons and reverting the constant flood of vandalism that would be unmanageable without your work. Happy New Year and thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

For the kind words on my talkpage. 100,000 articles now scheduled to coincide with my 100th birthday. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creativity and mental health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For adding Category:English guitarists to articles. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football)

Is not an acceptable move from draft-space to main-space. Articles cannot be entirely based on database [i.e. primary] sources (which is what the sources are) - especially for a BLP; nor do sportsmen get exemption from meeting WP:GNG. Would you kindly undo your own move and let this incubate in draft space for longer, so that people can take all the time they want to look for proper sources? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I had WP:NAFOOT in mind instead of WP:GNG. I only accepted them because other reviewers have accepted similar ones. I guess I should have listened to my gut. I'll have to go through this IP editors contributions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
RandomCanadian This IP editor has created dozens of similar pages. Dave Becker is one of many. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
RandomCanadian Trying ping again. Fixed a typo. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. NAFOOT might be what it is, but ultimately NSPORTS (which, admittedly, is a little confusingly written) still states that the basic requirement remains GNG (Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No. [...]). That's a tricky situation, but, especially with BLPs, we need better sources than that. If you think it would be best to just push everything back into draft, that'd be fine by me. Of course there are surely dedicated fans of the sports who might want to spend their time looking in old newspapers to flesh these out in the future, but at the current state most seem like they need more work. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Strange. I must have misinterpreted that guideline. I'll probably use Newspapers.com to find more sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I think you move to mainspace was perfectly fine. We have lots of articles in similar condition, see Category:Stub-Class National Football League articles. And articles can be based on database sources, as we have tens of thousands of others that are just like it. Also, I see at Wikipedia:AFCPURPOSE, it says If this article were nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, would it be likely to survive?
Yes, it will probably be kept: Then ACCEPT it now. (You can tag non-deletion-worthy problems.) I can nearly guarantee it would be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
You are, and I hope at least consciously, in a minority regarding your position. Articles cannot be kept solely based on databases. And the rest you already know and are ignoring so that is not my problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Gisbert Hasenjaeger

Hi @Scorpions13256: How goes it. You have changed this by adding German philosopher. I don't think he was ever considered a philosopher. scope_creepTalk 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Same with Karl Schröter? He is a pure mathematician. So what is going on? scope_creepTalk 11:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
scopecreep If you look at the category itself, you can see that the category is a non-diffusing subcategory. Every page there is supposed to have the category Category:German philosophers. I can revert it all if I misinterpreted something. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I have undone them all just in case. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Scorpions13256: I never grasped what that non-diffusing' meant. I've never got the categories, that well. It could be I suppose, but it did look a bit weird, when he wasn't a philospher. It looks better now. Thanks for reverting. scope_creepTalk 17:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/'''Latridiinae'''

Template:Taxonomy/'''Latridiinae''' has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, you used rollback here, claiming that you reverted vandalism. Was this a mistake or deliberate? In any case, please see WP:DRAFTCAT: mainspace categories should be disabled in draft space. My edit was doing what is expected and wasn't vandalism at all. Please be more careful before using rollback or labeling things as "vandalism" in the future. Fram (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Fram I responded on your talk page. This is very strange. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Convention City

I believe that I have found what may be raw footage for the 1933(?) film, Convention City. I found it on YouTube in a post by NASS entitled, New Jersey 1930s in color, The Pennsylvania Reading.

A train comes into the station in the same location as the movie setting, and banners on the side of the train cars say, "Honeywell Rubber Co. Convention." I searched this name and it is only used for the fictional company in this movie. 2603:8081:8B02:36D8:E969:7F4D:86E8:9E61 (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You make a remarkably good case. I am speechless, but not optimistic. Why are you telling me, and not the uploader of the video? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Dab pages

When you move a dab page because there is now a primary topic, as at Miyakea, please remember to reformat the dab page accordingly. Thanks. I've fixed Miyakea (disambiguation). PamD 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I was not aware of the formatting guidelines. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Thanksgiving Day Disaster

On 19 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thanksgiving Day Disaster, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that even though many fans died after falling onto a furnace at a college football game, the event continued? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thanksgiving Day Disaster. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thanksgiving Day Disaster), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Taxobox error

Please see Category:Pages using speciesbox with unknown parameters. The unknown parameter in those I've looked at is |image_width=. The correct parameter would be |image_upright= (see {{Speciesbox}}) if there were any need to change the default image width. I hope you can fix these errors. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter coxhead My apologies. My automated editing couldn't replace that parameter. I was not aware that not changing the parameter would do that. I'm on it right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I am setting up JWB right now. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Peter coxhead I am completely done. I am terribly sorry for my error. I can't believe I forgot to check for error messages. It won't happen again. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm very impressed by the speed of your response! Thanks. Don't worry about making an error – I make plenty (more as I get older, alas). It's probably fortunate that I don't use automated tools much. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hook update

Hook update
Your hook reached 25,674 views (2,139.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Good work contributing articles from newspapers.com to the WP:HEY effort at Hancock County High School! – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing Paul Tillich from Category German Philosophers

Hello,

Wondering... I would say Tillich having a category of 'German Philosopher' is certainly apt. He wrote a lot of Philosophy in Germany addressing the German population during WW2, and was heavily influenced by Schelling, and his multi-volume work Systematic Theology is certainly philosophical, as it relates to sociological and psychological content to a large degree. He was a big part of the Gestalt Psychology movement, which threaded the line between psychology and philosophy. But I was wondering, as though I might not singly title him 'German Philosopher Paul Tillich', but if we were to talk influential German Philosophers in the 20th Century, I would certainly expect Tillich to be mentioned, if only for the Courage to Be, which was a book that was required reading in most Liberal Arts institutions around that time... or made a "splash" might be a way to put it.

Cheers, Garrett.stephens (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read WP:SUBCAT. It has been a while since I have made those edits, so I would go to the talk page instead. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
We already have it in 20th-century German philosohpers. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah thank you! And not sure if this is the right place (likely is not) but I appreciate you taking the time to comb over my draft for Tillich's Teaching Assistant!
Garrett.stephens (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
My talk page definitely is the right place. Another reviewer made some copyedits to the article though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of István Bethlen (polo player) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article István Bethlen (polo player) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/István Bethlen (polo player) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ficaia (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing the page

Dear Scorpion,

I have rewritten most of the sections of the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_G._Lawrence

I hope this is neutral enough. If not, I will be happy to make changes till it sounds neutral.

Many thanks and remain well, Maitri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitriforall (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for bringing that comment/diff to my attention. Even though we are both still supporting their RfA, I do think it was something that needed to be brought up. That was definitely a good catch. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but I will probably die if I drink your beer. Antidepressants suck. Lol. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
After eight years of Zero, four years of Trump, and the first year of Biden; beer is my antidepressant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ad Orientem IIRC, she has said that she will not recuse from AP2. This still has no effect on my !vote, but I will not say why. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of handing someone part of a mop. If I reach a point where I question their ability to handle certain important aspects of the job impartially, I will move to oppose. I'm not there yet. FWIW there are subjects I tend to stay away from on the project because of institutional biases and in one case, my very strong disagreement with a position adopted by the community. But that doesn't impinge on my functions as an admin. It just means there are some subjects where I know my blood pressure is going to go up if I start editing there, so I don't. For now I'm keeping an eye on the RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Same. The reason was because if I opposed Tamzin's RFA, I would have to support a lot of administrators being desysopped so I could be logically consistent.Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not good. They have been doubling down overnight and some of their more recent comments have pushed me over the edge. I've moved to oppose. This really sucks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I just woke up. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not opposing per her excellent track record. Had she just said I would not support a transphobe or any other type of bigot, I would have never been concerned. As a matter of fact, that is the position I hold. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, I have regretfully switched to oppose. A childhood friend cut ties with me last week solely because of my religion. That really hurt. I am also convinced by the opposes. I am still not sure if I did the right thing. I am probably going to take a break when the RFA is over. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have moved back to support. I guess I needed to hear my initial rationale repeated back a few times. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It's all good. Honestly the only way she will fail this RfA is if she withdraws, which is unlikely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is still a chance that this will be decided by a crat chat. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathematically there would have to be an avalanche of oppose votes with a steady stream of defections. Is it possible? Yeah. But I've never seen an RfA with this many supports go south before. She is still picking up supports and the rate of opposes is slowing. Most people who participate in RfAs have already shown up. I don't think there are enough votes pending to tilt things by much. If this has popped up 24hrs earlier, I think it would closer. My guess is she passes with ballpark 80% support. I really do feel badly for her. She has been a great editor, and having been through a rough RfA myself, I understand the pain when people post harshly worded opposes. It stings. I just hope she takes onboard the concerns of these editors as she assumes her new responsibilities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Same. I know now that the community would not approve of me becoming an administrator. It hurts to see so many people I respected implicitly say that I am not fit to serve for the greatest Encyclopedia of all time. To be fair, I wouldn't hand myself the mop either per my social anxiety, my lack of self-confidence, and my indecisiveness.
I don't think Tamzin will get taken to arbcom. She never showed incivility anywhere except that RFA. As a matter of fact, I think I have seen multiple areas where she was able to act impartially. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There's an old adage among experienced editors that rough RfAs make better admins. I'm not sure if that's actually true, but It's a nice thought. As for wanting the mop, most sensible people don't. If you have social anxiety, I'd definitely just do your best to help out where you are comfortable. I've been doing this job for a while and I still get stressed sometimes. And my politics were definitely an issue in my RfA. That was to a certain degree a self inflicted wound as I had foolishly advertised. But still, it was brutal. Some people as much as called me a right wing nut and a liar. I came close to withdrawing and had to be talked out of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
No beer for me either, Scorps! Maybe I should go on a drinking bender and log-in to WP... :D Don't worry about the AfD/yesterday. Take care Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow. This is getting tight. I still think she will pass. But it is going to be close. If this had all popped up 24 hrs earlier, I think she would be underwater now. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I was pretty convinced that this would pass with a crat chat. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I think your crystal ball is better than mine right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I have switched back to oppose. I think her opinions are incompatible with a collaborative encyclopedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What's going on?

-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I made someone really mad. I apologized to someone in an email and she demanded that I never talk to her again. I don't think I can contribute here anymore. TNT, I am sorry. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
You sound stressed. And that's usually a sign that it's time to take a short wiki-break. I don't know what is going on between you and TheresNoTime, but I am getting a bad vibe from this RfA. Too many people are getting way too wound up. This is an online encyclopedia. We are having a conversation about whether or not to grant some extra tools to someone. We are not electing a president or the next Pope. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I am very stressed. I am about to have a panic attack. I don't know what I said to upset her, but whatever it was I'm sorry. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's time to take a break. It happens. I left for 18 months. Just put up a wiki-break template and let it go for a few days or longer if you need to. There is nothing here worth severely stressing over. When you are ready, come back and work on whatever interests you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Whilst being mindful of the request I made here, I will comment to say please do take a break Scorpions13256 Nothing which has happened is worth even the most mild of panic attacks, and I certainly do not wish to cause you any distress — TNT (talk • she/her) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Taking a self-imposed wikibreak demonstrates you are making good mental health choices. Had someone ask me a few weeks ago to block them for a week (after the block expired, it ended badly, but uh... never mind). I could see you were struggling, making an effort to be be honest to yourself. Courageous stuff. I admired it. We need you, and we need you safe and sound. These days I exhaust my stress using physical labor; COVID taught me to enjoy slowing down my life, but get more physically active. I vigorously walk the dogs, do more labor-intensive things at work, exercise my body more. I'm managing better than I have recently, and I think it's because I have grown to collaborate freely here, where every contribution comes from my willingness. My pagespace work has halted for now, but my gumption is rising. We all wish you well, Scorpions13256. You can rest. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, but my Wikibreak won't start until after the crat chat closes. I honestly regret sending that email to Ad Orientem. Thank you for your support. I will probably use the Wikibreak enforcer. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
BusterD I just don't feel comfortable going on Discord anymore. As a matter of fact, I am so embarrassed that I am not even sure if I can contribute here anymore. I have never had someone mad at me on Wikipedia. Sorry if I come off as if I'm not taking your advice. Again, thank you for your support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
We are all adults here. Regret is fine. Amends come later. Trust is now. Ad Orientem is a big boy and has heard worse stuff from people he cares about less. Go, go away from keyboard. Social media is NOT a wikipedian's friend, not like Internet Archive Scholar (which see). You've earned the recovery time. Relax. Bureaucrats, who serve the entire community, would be hard-pressed to reverse a discussion outcome which isn't even technically in the customary discretionary range (as several crats have noted so far), especially with the (hate to use these words) wiki-politic optics involved. If I were a crat, I wouldn't have closed it alone. BusterD (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I just want to let everyone know that I am back from my Wikibreak as I have calmed down. I am terribly sorry for any drama I caused. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor Scorpions13256 for having done more good than they know. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no denying the RfA got very dramatic, with intense -ve emotion felt by some on both sides. There's even a chance its caused lasting rifts between a few editors (though hopefully not). But even accepting this, the discussion was a big net +ve in my view. In the words of 28Bytes on the crat chat page, it showed "There is clearly not a lot of agreement with" the candidates anti Trump position. As such, it may have a tangible impact on Wikipedia's harmful and often unacknowledged anti right bias (I mean on the social dimension, wouldn't be so bad if we were like that on economics.) I could write 1000s of words on why the RfA should turn out to be a net +ve, though I'll keep it brief as doubt you'd want to read too much from a random nobody like myself. Just a couple more points. Nietzsche said its often impossible for deep thinkers not to be torn between two sides, so no need to feel too bad about the indecisive thing. That said, hopefully you'll get less indecisive with time, as people who stick to one side tend to be trusted more. And generally, if you know a secret or an overlooked but potentially explosive point, it's often best to keep it to yourself. Drama is rarely as fruitful as I think it may turn out to be in the case of Tamzin's RfA. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scorpions13256/Archive_3&oldid=1090275973"