User talk:Dsprc

ARS

Hello User:Dsprc In May of 2017 you inserted several tags flagging concerns about the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) article. It appears that over the past 18 months these concerns have been significantly resolved (by others, not me) and also it seems that you have focused on other topics. I believe the tags have served their purpose and so I am removing the final tag. Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2018 (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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

All Hail, El Algo!

SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!

-- dsprc [talk] 16:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
679		Great Firewall (talk)	Add sources
925		Tlatelolco massacre (talk)	Add sources
2,256		Email address (talk)	Add sources
41		Traveling the Stars: Action Bronson and Friends Watch Ancient Aliens (talk)	Add sources
638		News Corporation (talk)	Add sources
529		Rose Wilder Lane (talk)	Add sources
613		Alpha Group (talk)	Cleanup
27		Steven Horwitz (talk)	Cleanup
41		Bizzle (talk)	Cleanup
1,455		United States involvement in regime change (talk)	Expand
778		Franklin Graham (talk)	Expand
92		Carmen Ortiz (talk)	Expand
499		American Enterprise Institute (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38		Cisco NX-OS (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
46		PeerGuardian (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
565		Internet Research Agency (talk)	Merge
20		Undergrowth (talk)	Merge
585		Disinformation (talk)	Merge
7		Environmental issues in Appalachia (talk)	Wikify
61		COVID-19 misinformation by the United States (talk)	Wikify
64		LightDM (talk)	Wikify
4		Will Santillo (talk)	Orphan
4		FileSonic (talk)	Orphan
4		Aden Mohamed Ali (talk)	Orphan
13		Susanne Latimore (talk)	Stub
18		Tianya Club (talk)	Stub
10		Torservers.net (talk)	Stub
7		Helen Lowry (talk)	Stub
7		Northern District Times (talk)	Stub
12		Jacinta Tynan (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Thanks for the helpful reminders! I'll remember to use the same caution typical of the honey badger.

Also: Both of these templates are incorrectly applied, btw… As an aside note: one should go reread WP:NPOV to understand what it actually means.

P.S. Don't template me. If you have something to express: speak with me as a human, with your own words.

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The templates are required notifications, per Arbcom's recent revision of procedures for enforcement and sanctions in these topics. You can read the entire documentation at the Arbcom pages. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO WP:CTOP specifies they may be used; not that they MUST. (§Awareness of contentious topics)

I noticed {{alert/first}} documentation does state it MUST be used however. This might be a problem if WP:CTOP doesn't reflect actual policy… Do you have a page which definitively states the policy on alert templates, so WP:CTOP could be corrected if CTOP is erroneous?

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Miner 209er external link

Hi dpsrc. I removed a link to the Miner 2049er emulation at archive.org. You reverted that change, saying that the site is a "globally-recognized library." While I agree that that's true of archive.org as a whole, the emulations are much less clear. They don't have copyright permissions, even for games still being sold in retrogaming packages. and no one is validating the accuracy of the emulations. I don't know if there has been a project VG discussion on this, but sounds useful. Dgpop (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dgpop – I basically think the links are useful for people wanting to explore these legacy works in an interactive fashion; that's why I put it back.

I won't necessarily argue heavily on the clarity point… (It hasn't been litigated yet but, similar is ongoing… And we kind of do have robots running around, linking up copies of Web content basically wholesale and without permission as well – m:InternetArchiveBot… That's all sanctioned soooo…)

Libraries do have certain carve-outs to byzantine monopoly copyright privilege, however. IANAL. Maybe it's a question for Wikimedia Legal instead of VG? (C:COM:VPC is the better community to ask copyright questions to).

Validation is a different matter. There are multiple open source projects driving emulation at The Archive: MESS (https://github.com/jsmess/jsmess) and DOSBox. Volunteers and staff (Jason Scott) do curate these collections, and make fixes to system and support files at The Archive if necessary (they're all within individual, single purpose, self-contained zip archives – listed toward the bottom in HTML page source…). If errors occur: users can report to the open source projects or submit a patch(!!) – Archive has forums where patrons can reach out if problems arise and volunteers/staff assist, or upstream reports to JSMESS, DOSBox, et al.

It's not a warez site. It is a library… and no library wants to serve its patrons busted up media. Whether that be print or pixels. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good discussion. My own experience has been that the archive.org emulations feel janky, often because of lack of information about how to play games for different platforms. Looking at Miner 2049er, it took a bit to figure out how to start a game, and then it was for the wrong zone (I pressed 5 instead of 1). I have an Xbox 360 game controller connected, but the game doesn't use it. Arrow keys don't work either. Eventually I found I need to use the arrow keys on the numeric keypad and 0/Ins to jump. Not the best experience to link to. Dgpop (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dgpop Speaking of fragmented platforms <grin>: There is a version for the Atari 8-bit family of machines if you'd rather that one be linked? DOS version was selected here for graphical superiority, and (ironically) keyboard support.

Your troubles sound like the typical native experience, not necessarily The Archive's fault. Remember: technology was exponentially more primitive and clunky back then – the devices on our desks are ergonomic and engineering marvels, with more computational power than all computers of that era combined.

You did (eventually) figure it out! and got to experience it in an interactive way. (there is a Reviews section on each exhibit page at The Archive – users typically use those to provide helpful information to fellow patrons; such as which keys to use in the games… *nudge nudge*)

Gamepads won't work because one would have to make extensive changes to dosbox.conf, which is not immediately accessible to users from within the browser (all sealed up in those self-contained zip files). Then it's passed to MESS, browsers and their sandboxes, then the OS – all needing special tweaks to support a single gamepad…

Still: nothing is perfect, and sometimes Good Enough™ is all we get. "Not the best experience" is better than none at all. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I legit own Doxbin

I am editing a wikipedia about me. C1cws (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@C1cws – Oh, and you legit run this international malware and hacking group too?[1] No one legit involved in this would practice such terrible opsec and publicly out themselves this way… Either way: it's unsourced, and not permissible – please see: WP:V. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@C1cws: Let's be real: If you're connected to these subjects, you should know how Wikipedia works. We need an RS to make a claim first, before we can include anything.

One could assume an individual that is closely connected would possess more intimate knowledge of the subject, and shouldn't have difficulties scrounging up existing sources – or even inducing journalists to create them if they don't yet exist… -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Doxbin is legal, sorry but are you dumb? Doxbin is legal so i’m not ‘snitching on myself’, since it’s a legal site, all my names including my telegram etc. Is on the website, including our contact Email, so what does that mean i’m ‘outing myself’? C1cws (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@C1cws – Note that zero claims were made about Doxbin's legality… Please also see WP:CIV…

Back on topic: Wikipedia still requires some remotely semi-reliable, quasi -independent, third-party source to vouch for this material before it can be included. It's simple: Just drop a <ref> on it from an RS, and we're basically good to go. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Cameron LaCroix/Draft moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Cameron LaCroix/Draft, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mccapra You do understand this is a workpage for updating a currently published article so that a new layout can be hacked on collaboratively before going into the parent, and not a proposed new article, correct? (hence the big {{workpage}} banner at the top, and not the hideous {{draft}} foolishly slapped on now.) It does not require incubation, and it's time-span could extend for years, not the maximal 6 months. As such, Draft space is absolutely not the correct location for this. Maybe the WP:Subpages should be renamed to alleviate such confusion? Then again: onus is kinda on your end to not make this mistake… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved it into Talk – not Draft – where it's actually supposed to be. You can tag the spiderweb of redirects for deletion if ya want… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The guidance on workspaces says, right at the top, not to create them in mainspace, which is what you did. As long as it’s not there I don’t mind where you put it. All the best Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mccapra – We'll they're not supposed to go into Draft space either, now are they?… How about we both take ownership of our mistakes… and maybe slow down and double check work when using automated tools? So long as you're not being sloppy: I don't care what you automate.

I now know what workspace says and that is why it's been corrected. Own your shit too. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mobile browser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDML. 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) 06:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Virtuous Pedophiles

I have removed a link to a pedophilia advocacy organization you added. Please read WP:CHILDPROTECT Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Underwoods Witch, That's not how this works…

Absolutely nothing within WP:CHILDPROTECT states that we can not link to the home page of an article's subject (even if they may be abhorrent).

It pertains to user conduct (for example, the shit occurring on Talk:Victor Salva a few years ago – which is probably too old to be actionable at this point)

Shouting "protect the children" isn't a magic wand or incantation that allows one to censor material they find objectionable.

Please see: WP:OM, WP:WINC, WP:ELOFFICIAL

Also: you better be on extremely firm footing, with copious, and relevant evidence, before you go waving WP:CHILDPROTECT at people… It's borderline WP:NPA territory. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Most other recent editors who were sharing their pro pedophile "research" links were recently banned. It isn't a magic wand, it is community consensus. Propedophile positions are not welcome Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

They got banned for socking. If you continue with this tendentious and disruptive behaviour (after just being unblocked recently), you'll be joining them.

There were two changes made to article: one to include additional references to mainstream publications (reliable sources) which cover this topic. Two was creating and simply linking related articles in the see also section. Nothing about that violates our child protection guidelines. Nothing about that is advocacy of anything.

You've not demonstrated in any way how any of this material is violative of policy. You don't get to blank pages because you don't like an article's topic.

Child protect is a conduct policy. Thus, if you're going to continue with bullshit accusations that I'm advocating in any way for pedophilia: please report me to an administrative notice board ASAP, then – with all due respect – kindly fuck off. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, ok. Wow. Just wow. Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I challenged your addition. Take it to the talk page and stop edit warring. Read WP:BRD Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Timeline of Internet conflicts

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Timeline of Internet conflicts, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated source tags

Please don't tags sources as deprecated (which has a very specific meaning beyond "unreliable") if they are not explicitly deprecated (e.g. this despite 1 and 2). Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)