User talk:Jauerback/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jauerback. 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. |
|
Archives
|
|
|
Happy New Year, Jauerback!
Jauerback,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Thank you! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
your on wheejs
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
- R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
- G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
- Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- Different from their username
- User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
- Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
- {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Arbitration
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
Miscellaneous
- Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
- Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Deletion of a page
Hi Jauerback I see you are having a difference of editorial opinion with one "cruiser 1". This contributor is interested in keeping a high profile for this Tragedy... because he has a deep connection to other online organisations who have found various ways to gain traffic and profit from this. Mainly through Youtube and Facebook. Cruiser 1 has a website. His interest is mainly about self promotion. The actual family of this tragic ~ Girl ~ have been subjected to a relentless ongoing hatefest that has seen a house burnt, car damaged and disabled, property stolen, family broken. All from internet involvement. I will lend any assistance I can to stop this article and any other that is damaging to real people. I cannot accept that this Forum would be open to exploitation and weaponisation . Thank you. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
IP Address
Hi,
I understand what I did but I was just trying to remove something I did not want there and I went about it the wrong way. I apologise. I wanted to contact Wikipedia but have failed to do so. I have made an account after accidentally editing without an account, which I thought would link my previous edit to my username but it didn’t. I am interested in writing articles on Wikipedia and editing the ones that misinform people. I just wanted for those edits to be under my name and not my IP, which is publicly visible. Is there any way that can be edited?
Thanks in advance!
Jasonblythe (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
TPA
Mind yanking it here please? Praxidicae (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Leachchapman
Did you mean to block Special:Contributions/Leahchapman1992? They appear to be reverting vandalism, not adding it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. I'll unblock. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis speedy deleted
Greetings! You recently speedy deleted the article Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis citing WP:G4 claiming it's "essentially a recreation of Suicide of Katelyn Davis" that was deleted earlier.
WP:G4 doesn't apply here, because Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis is not a "sufficiently identical copy" of Suicide of Katelyn Davis. More specifically, the issues of sourcing and notability that contributed to the old article to be deleted, aren't present in the new article. Remember, when applying WP:G4 "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As seen in the new article's logs, it only came into being after a formal Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation process and approval. Please undelete this article. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know why you replied here and your talk page, but since I started the discussion on your talk page, that's where I replied as well. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I commented here because I didn't know if you'd notice comments I made on my own talk page. Anyway, thank you for the DRV suggestion, which I've followed.
Deletion review for Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cruiser1 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Good luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This IP didn't just trigger the edit filter; they also added highly defamatory content to articles, as shown here. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Anonymuss User: I've suppressed their edits. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thanks for your work at User Creation Log and UAA. it is greatly appreciated, keep up the good work, RhinosF1 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
Hi Jauerback, I see you have blocked this user before. Could you take a look at their recent edits to David Cameron? As per this ANI thread and the subsequent "final warning" perhaps another block is warranted here? 72 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
User violating topic ban?
I'm contacting you because you originally closed this discussion [1] and notified the indefinitely topic banned user [2] of the outcome. (I was aware of the topic ban because they mentioned something about it in a previous AfD discussion.) They have recently been nominating multiple articles to AfD per UTC calendar day [3], which seems like a topic ban violation. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks in advance for any insight. Bakazaka (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this IP you just blocked, would you mind revoking talk page access? His talk page edit history should say everything. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Itoy1234
Shortly after you blocked User:Itoy123, they created User:Itoy1234 (see log). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
dont delete speedy tag
(DFGHJKju (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC))
- @DFGHJKju: I'm an admin. Consider the speedy declined. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert
I saw your ruling at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents imposing a limit of one AFD nomination per day.
In his closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Replogle RHaworth wrote that Johnpacklambert had been "blocked for raising bum AfD discussions". That is how I learned of the ban you imposed.
Violating the topic ban you imposed is not the only thing JPL does wrong. I checked his contribution history for 2019. Nominators are expected to leave a heads-up on the user talk page of the contributor who started the article. He didn't inform ANY of the contributors who started the 20 articles he nominated for deletion in 2019.
If he is going to be allowed to start any AFD I think the conditions imposed on him should include requiring him to inform the article starter, every single time. Do you think I should wait until someone else brings up his behavior at AFI again? Should I simply suggest it there myself? Or do you think you have the authority to inform him this condition is added to his ban?
After looking at those 20 AFD it seems to me that, even after you imposed a limit on his rate of nominating, he still is not complying with WP:BEFORE.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Informing the creator of the article is not a hard and fast requirement, it is only a suggestion. I will seek to do it in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- JPL is correct. Although it's courteous to inform the article creator (and major contributors) of the AFD, there's no rule that it needs to be done. So, no, I wouldn't bring this up to ANI. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp
wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing. - checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
Lewiburgers56
Hello. I see that you have blocked "Lewiburgers56". "Chwistian pawwy" is a similar account which may be connected. Certes (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
pls block this guy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:41.210.14.250 Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Already done By Materialscientist. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh..Ok, sorry for wasting your time then, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.147.99 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Edits made to Hunting Hitler and Bob Baer articles
Jauerback,
I was very disappointed by the unprofessional way in which you chose to address me, and I think you are confused about the timeline of events.
First, I edited the Hunting Hitler and Bob Baer articles with factual information and citations. Then you removed these things, saying the sources were not reliable enough. I then put the edits back and tried to briefly explain why these source were valid.
After all this, I received three emails from you. One welcoming me to Wikipedia, then a second telling me you took my content down because you did not believe my sources were reliable enough. You asked me to contact you, and I would have, but ten minutes later you sent a third message, which was needlessly rude, telling me not to keep reverting the edits. Perhaps you thought I ignored you second message and went ahead and reverted the edits without speaking to you but this still does not justify you being rude.
I feel at this point that I cannot get a fair hearing from you, since you are already convinced that I don't know what I am doing and you are right about everything, so can you please hand this matter over to a different Administrator, who will be better able to reasonably assess what I have to say and what should or should not be done with these two articles?
Thank you, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKLambert (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Give me a break. First of all, I'm not confused by the timeline. You added, I reverted. You added again. I'm the one who initiated a discussion. What do I have wrong here? Second, you have an interesting idea of what constitutes a "fact". Hell, the very thing you are trying to insert is an opinion, whether it's yours or whether it's cited to someone else. Third, you need to cite everything to a reliable source, which I've linked a few times to your talk page. Fourth, I've sent you zero emails. Those are called talk page messages; just like you've left here. Perhaps you got email notifications? Regardless, there was nothing rude whatsoever about them. Those messages show you some resources for you to help navigate Wikipedia as well as the beginning of the discussion. What's rude about that? Finally, a fair hearing? Good Lord, I'm trying to actually help you make the articles better, but you don't appear to be able to handle constructive criticism or even recognize when someone is trying to help. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said, you need to remove yourself from this conversation and refer this to another Administrator
You have already made up your mind about everything, with minimal input from me, and you clearly cannot give this matter a fair hearing. Just look at what you said:
"First of all, I'm not confused by the timeline. You added, I reverted. You added again. I'm the one who initiated a discussion. What do I have wrong here?"
I added the information back, with a brief explanation as to why. AFTER this received one nice message from you, asking me to contact you if I feel your revert was wrong. Then, without me doing anything, I receive a rude message 10 minutes later from you telling me not to keep reverting, as if I had done something new since your previous message. I had no opportunity to actually discuss the issue with you before you decided to get upset with me.
"Second, you have an interesting idea of what constitutes a "fact". Hell, the very thing you are trying to insert is an opinion, whether it's yours or whether it's cited to someone else."
Simply not true, but how can I get explain that to you when you have already made up your mind and chosen to get upset with me over nothing I did?
"Third, you need to cite everything to a reliable source, which I've linked a few times to your talk page."
Again, I would be happy to explain why a Primary Source (e.g. audio and video of the person in question, speaking in their own words) is a reliable source, but you have already made up your mind that I have everything wrong and you clearly have no interest in giving me a fair hearing on this or any other point.
"Fourth, I've sent you zero emails. Those are called talk page messages; just like you've left here. Perhaps you got email notifications? Regardless, there was nothing rude whatsoever about them."
Now you are just being petty. Because I identified the email notification of YOUR message, as an email from you, I am somehow inaccurate? And this is someone important for you to complain about? Give me a break!
"Those messages show you some resources for you to help navigate Wikipedia as well as the beginning of the discussion. What's rude about that?"
Your wording was rude! You acted as if I ignored your nice message and reverted your revert, without contacting you, which is not what happened!
"Finally, a fair hearing? Good Lord, I'm trying to actually help you make the articles better, but you don't appear to be able to handle constructive criticism or even recognize when someone is trying to help."
You have a very odd idea of constructive criticism. You are trying to tell me how wrong I am and how you know everything. How can I get a fair hearing with this attitude?
Can we PLEASE refer this to another Administrator?
Thank you, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKLambert (talk • contribs) 13:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't an admin issue, but I'm done dealing with you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Recurring offenses by User:99.238.170.176
Hi. Since you previously blocked User: 99.238.170.176, I thought I'd let you know that he's resumed his vandalism. Please help. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop harassing me!
It's bad enough that you were rude and petty, and refused to bring in an outside party to resolve the needlessly hostile environment you created between us. It's bad enough that you gave me no recourse to solve the problems at hand and then simply told me you were "done" with me, as if I have no rights and you are the King of Wikipedia. But now you won't even keep your word. Leave me alone!
I understand that you think you are protecting Wikipedia from bad information but that does not justify your childish behavior. ALL I wanted to do is to improve two articles with factual information. And yes, the information is factual, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise! Is it my fault that the mainstream media has largely ignored Bob Baer's poor behavior? Is it inconceivable that I might actually be an expert on the subjects at hand and that I have valid information to share? You refuse to consider anything beyond your knee-jerk reaction and you will not entertain the possibility or error on your part. Fine. Be a close-minded jerk. You go be god of your little world and I'll stop trying to make Wikipedia more accurate. But at least have the decency to stop harassing me and rubbing my nose in how great you are.
James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:506:BE00:48B3:14AF:FF1D:BF62 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
hello
help me for create Infobox smoge:الگو in fa.wikipedia.org Alirezatass (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Alirezatass: I have no idea what you're talking about or why you came to me. You should probably check with someone on Persian Wikipedia for assistance. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Jeremiah Valeska
Can you make a page for Jeremiah Valeska? If not can you change the Jerome page to "the Valeska brothers" or something like that
Thanks 92.232.111.148 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would suggest going to the talk page and starting a discussion about it there. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Obvious vandal
Hello Jauerback, could you please do something against this obvious vandalising IP user? He repeatedly vandalised in the article List of Turkish football champions. I already reported him at the vandalism noticeboard, but it was simply rejected. Surely there must be something that can be done against such disruptive editors? Thank you in advance. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- What would you have me do? The standard block length for the first offense is 31 hours. The IP hasn't edited in almost 120 hours. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
 |
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- 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.
Technical news
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
Block of 115.164.59.140
- 115.164.59.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Why was this user blocked? It looks to me like they blanked part of the page (as 115.164.177.239) and were trying to clean up their own mess, but kept hitting the spam blacklist. Or am I not noticing something else? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Check their edit filter log. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see only five entries, from 279 (hist · log). That filter trips whenever an user (or group of IPs, but that's not relevant here) unsuccessfully attempts to save an edit four times in five minutes on a single page. Could be another filter (that's the intent), could be that they checked the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in their preferences but didn't leave a summary, could be a bug in MediaWiki or an extension that prevented saving, or as was the case here, could be the spam blacklist. Of course if they were actually spamming, that makes sense, but in this case they were only undoing their own page-blanking and restoring a link that was already on the page. Should I, perhaps, rename the filter? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see five hits to the same filter that has a filter description of "Repeated attempts to vandalize" in the span of a half hour and I don't know how I'm supposed to think anything other than vandalism. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've renamed it "Repeated attempts to save edit" which I hope is clearer. See also the verbiage just spilled at WP:EFN#279 scope. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see five hits to the same filter that has a filter description of "Repeated attempts to vandalize" in the span of a half hour and I don't know how I'm supposed to think anything other than vandalism. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I see only five entries, from 279 (hist · log). That filter trips whenever an user (or group of IPs, but that's not relevant here) unsuccessfully attempts to save an edit four times in five minutes on a single page. Could be another filter (that's the intent), could be that they checked the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in their preferences but didn't leave a summary, could be a bug in MediaWiki or an extension that prevented saving, or as was the case here, could be the spam blacklist. Of course if they were actually spamming, that makes sense, but in this case they were only undoing their own page-blanking and restoring a link that was already on the page. Should I, perhaps, rename the filter? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Bagram airbase situation
Today is May 12, 2019 and I am going to ask you sir about the situation of Bagram airbase! I need to go to this airbase because of a patient. Can you tell me sir that, is Bagram airbase is active now ? Is it accepting patient nowadays or it is closed ? Please answer me as soon as you can sir. If it is possible please send the answer to my email sir. Shoaibrezaee2@gmail.com Kaveer32 (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're asking the wrong person. On the wrong site as well. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply 69 Boyz
What exactly is needed? You said I added "promotional crap" which was rather insulting. You said I had no sources when i had links added with the sources to everything I added. So if I cannot edit it then who can? Their wiki is inaccurate. Do you need a signed letter from the group/label? How does this work? KendallTolbert (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for insulting you, but that's exactly what it is: promotional crap. Lines like "The 69 Boyz are Florida's biggest selling Rap group and hail from the sunshine state of Florida...", "..led by the chart-topping dance smash single...", "...spent an astonishing 27 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 Charts...", and "...This chart shattering hit..." are just a few examples of what does not belong in an encyclopedia. Those are lines that would be appropriate for their personal website or for a billboard ad for an upcoming show. That's just one of your problems. Once you remove all the fluff and just stick to the actual facts, then you'll need indepenedent, reliable sources for it all. You need to click on that link, because a reliable source is not another Wikipedia article, it's not from their website, it's not from a press release. Finally, you have a HUGE conflict of interest and it's just best for you to not edit the article at all. It's going to be next to impossible for you to objective and not promote them. It's in your best interest to make them look good, so please just stay away from the article. However, you're more than welcome to edit other articles on Wikipedia that might interest you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Understandable, then how do we get their page updated? Because there are major inaccuracies in the article
And all those statements you said are crap are facts and able to be looked up. If the verbiage needs to be changed then cool, but its not crap. Please let me know how to update because the group has been trying to figure out how to change this for 5 years and I thought I had it figured out. And its kind of crazy because there are SO many wikis with bad/false info in it, but I guess you cant catch everything. Please let me know how we can handle this. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KendallTolbert (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @KendallTolbert:I would suggest by reading some of the links that I've left on your talk page, specifically WP:COI. Then, once you've done that, come up with some reliable sources that can verify what you want to write. Then, put together your proposed changes that are backed by the sources. Finally, head over to WP:EDITREQ. Good luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales
Why you revert my edit? This could be sound friendly... --2001:B07:6442:8903:911D:301E:6F00:1C0F (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's bad grammar and its inclusion has been reverted before. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's bad grammar because I am italian, and english native speakers should help other native speakers... this is why the inclusion has been reverted before... --2001:B07:6442:8903:911D:301E:6F00:1C0F (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should stick to editing in your native language until your English improves. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's bad grammar because I am italian, and english native speakers should help other native speakers... this is why the inclusion has been reverted before... --2001:B07:6442:8903:911D:301E:6F00:1C0F (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Jerome and Jeremiah Valeska
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The Joker (Gotham)" doesn't mean that both characters are the character. They have, however, been confirmed to be explorations of the character's origins, so the context of "The Joker (Gotham)" is actually "Gotham's take on the Joker".
An alternative could be something like "The Joker in Gotham", "Jerome and Jeremiah Valeska" sounds too lengthy and makes the article exclusive to only 2 characters as opposed to what could be a whole article dedicated to the show's exploration of the character. --Kingofsting87 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again. no. Making the article title having any reference to the Joker is incorrect. If you want to discuss alternatives on the talk page, feel free, but don't move it again until you get an actual consensus, which two new editors who barely edit Wikipedia do not make. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- In what way is it incorrect? Because not only is "Jeremiah" the spitting image of the Joker, but both he and his brother have been confirmed by the showrunners to lead to the origin of the character. Both characters are directly centred around the Joker, as stated numerous times by the showrunners. In fact, EP John Stephens flat out said "maybe he is, maybe he isn't" and Cameron Monaghan flat out said "makeup tests for the final Joker design"
--Kingofsting87 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- In your own words, "...origin of the character..." does not mean he's THE character. And "...maybe he is, maybe he isn't..." definitely does not mean he's the Joker. You're proving my point. Take this to the relevant talk page, because this discussion doesn't belong here. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, it seems that many of your edits keep getting reverted. Your latest edit probably will too, since it was reverted once. Take this as a hint that you need to stop pushing them through. Use the talk pages and discuss them, especially after you've been reverted. See WP:BRD. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Kingofsting87, called it. You now need to read WP:3RR. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again, you're forgetting that he is literally identical to the character and has been marketed as the character. Like I've mentioned before, he's a portrayal of the character - as Monaghan and the showrunners have said numerous times.
Kingofsting87 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- You're wrong, but feel free to try and convince others with your theory. Also, I'm going to put that WP:3RR warning on your talk page to make sure that you see it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not entirely, I'm an ADMIN over at the Gotham wiki and I've had a very sharp eye on these kinds of things. With that said, I can actually see where you are coming from. I've stopped the pointless edit war, but I still think Cameron portrayed the character - have you even watched the show?
--Kingofsting87 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, final time I'm replying here as I've already stated that this belongs on a talk page. Yes, I've watched the show and therefore I know that neither of the brothers are ever called nor are they ever referred to as The Joker in the show. The links you provided on the talk page are not all reliable sources and a Joker hashtag doesn't mean crap. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Administrator changes
Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
Technical news
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
- The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
- The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.
Ok Sure
I thought that I was right about my edit. Won't repeat again.Tipathi (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipathi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
Administrator changes
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
Arbitration
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
Miscellaneous
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Administrator changes
Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
Floquenbeam • Lectonar- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
Technical news
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Miscellaneous
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
Technical news
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Arbitration
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Miscellaneous
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
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) 10:44, 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 |
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Cheers
|
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J. MarnetteD|Talk 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |