user talk:SoWhy
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Pahonia's case
Hello, thanks for your opinion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pahonia. This dispute should be solved by neutral arbiters with limiting of words in statements because otherwise neutral users will once again "drown" in the war of random arguments like it was at the AN here. I included these three clear quotes from Britannica for a reason. If a similar procedure is offered by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, then maybe it really should be moved there. Do I need to create new case there or the existing case will be moved? -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Pofka: You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Arbitration. ArbCom looks only at conduct, we are not tasked with resolving content disputes. Yours is a content problem, hence your emphasis on quotes from EB. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help for ways to find assistance, especially using the requests for comment (RFC) process. Regards SoWhy 14:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Thanks, I'm not yet familiar with such procedures. -- Pofka (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
Administrator changes
Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
- Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.
Technical news
- Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Arbitration
- After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.
Hey, quick ping to let you know I launched a page for Contentful. I saw you deleted an old problematic version, so was hoping you could check out my version. Thanks! --FeldBum (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @FeldBum: The old version consisted of merely one sentence and no sources or claims of significance. Your version looks sufficiently improved to avoid a similar fate. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| Thank you so much for helping me with this edit(https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malvika_Sharma&diff=1011141352&oldid=1011090370&diffmode=visual) some weeks ago. It was my first article then and you stopped it from deletion. I was so unaware of WP and was unable to reply you. It is good now. So It's my late thanks. :) Siddartha897 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC) |
- Just doing my job, but thanks
Regards SoWhy 16:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
- An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
Technical news
- IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Arbitration
- The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.
Re: Fallout New Vegas
Hello SoWhy,
I wanted to discuss the reversion of the edits I made. To be honest, I thought I had my citation in there. I also wanted to ask about what is considered verifiable. See, part of me was reluctant to put in citations like the game itself. Because most of the information I get is usually directly from the source. I didn't mean to be unconstructive in any way with my edits and I was doing them in good faith. I actually don't understand which part was original research (or is citing the game originally research? IDK)? I just started editing a week ago so I am still learning the steps a bit.Thank you for your time--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @PricklyCactus2: Games can be used as a primary source for things that explicitly happen in them (see the article Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos for examples, specifically the references "story #" and reference no. 8 which is the game itself and which is used to verify gameplay information) but as WP:OR explicitly warns, you cannot include a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves (emphasis added). In this case, you therefore cannot write that there "seems to be an intended ordered" (sic) if the game does not explicitly mention this order. Hence, per WP:SYNTH you instead need to find a reliable secondary source that confirms such an order. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: Oh! I see! I didn't mean it come off like that. I tend to be really wishy-washy on the intended order. I guess I should have worked on my wording better. In the games, the release order is the story canon because it has an overarching story. I used the term "seem to be an intended order" because technically you can play them in any order, but the DLC release order is the intended story order. The game confirms that with the first three DLCS talking about a nameless courier and Lonesome Road is where it is revealed. I hope that makes sense. I appreciate the time you are taking to talk with me about this.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)