Jump to content

User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Marked for deletion

Hi, I tried editing the page draft:Osa Interactive Gardens to delete the code that marks it for deletion but am not sure if I did this right. Could you possibly guide me through this? Thanks Clspurlock (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Clspurlock Greetings. Your draft was staled for six months and was deleted, where you recreated it just now. - see here [1]. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

National Rally Championship

Hi, when you get a chance please review Draft:National Rally Championship, it is ready for the article space. Wolfmartyn (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Wolfmartyn Good day. The 2 sources you provided is affiliated with the subject which makes the sources not independent. What we need citing of at least 3 professional published journalistic or newspaper sources which are independent from the subject and deem reliable to verify the contain claimed where by the talk about the subject directly and not merely passing mentioned - see WP:GOLDENRULE. Sources from home page, facebook, pres releases, interviews, user generated sites and etc can NOT be use to demonstrate and contribute the notability requirements needed. Once you done that, pls pop back here and let me know. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've added references to very credible media sources, hope that will be satisfactory. Do I need to re-enable Categories, or the bot will do this? Wolfmartyn (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Wolfmartyn Hi good afternoon. Thank you for adding the sources. Article has been reviewed and accepted. It is in the mainspace now - see National Rally Championship. Categories (cat) is manually input by editors and not by bot. When an additional ":" is inserted in "draft" article after the initial double brackets "[[". When the draft has been accepted, the ":" is removed automatically. I have made some edits and pls see the history "diff" and edit summary for what I have done. Thank you for your contribution and let me know if anything else I could assist. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
TY! Wolfmartyn (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Wolfmartyn Welcome. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting articles again (this time with sources)

Dude, why have you reverted edits again when clear evident sources are provided (ESPN is one of the best sources you can get as it's the official home of the UFC and is also the source used on the ESPN article).

Last time you reverted edits you said they were unsourced (ok, fair enough but they were sourced on the draft which as I explained before I was advised to do) and now you've reverted Arnold Allen's birthday back to the WRONG birthday which by the way he has confirmed himself on his Twitter that it's wrong and also the ESPN source (You know, the official home of the UFC and where the UFC is televised all across the US) with the CORRECT birthday (which was the source showcasing this).

You've removed a correct edit of his actual birthday that was correctly sourced back to a wrong false edit of his birthday with NO sources what so ever (Please show me the logic in this!)

This is getting incredibly annoying reverting edits that are correctly sourced and even more so 10000000% correct!

Do you want some more sources?

ESPN (Official home of UFC): http://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/3902098/arnold-allen

Tapology (Established MMA source): https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/23359-arnold-allen

Official UFC stats: http://ufcstats.com/fighter-details/040a74bb0a465c54

Arnold Allen himself: https://twitter.com/Arnoldbfa

I understand you keeping an eye on things but when you are editing sources that are CLEARLY correct and reverting back to INCORRECT information it is incredibly annoying, at least do some research which takes 5 seconds before reverting back to wrong and false information which is what you have done (with no source whatsoever).

When people are contributing fairly to improve Wikipedia and then people like yourself just revert all the correct work without even doing any research to see is kind of disrespectful.

Seriously, I don't mean this to sound bad and I'm not having a go at you but PLEASE do your research before amending people's hard work which is done in good faith and is also correct and sourced, it is incredibly annoying.

I'm not even going to amend it this time, I'm just going to leave it as incorrect which is what it is right now.

Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Music Editor 2017 Greetings. Thank you for the info above and sources. I reverted you edit is because you provide the source on body text (lead section) but not on the infobox section. If you see at the bottom of the infobox, it states "Mixed martial arts record from Sherdog" any info that could not obtained from Sherdog, sources needed to be provided which is applied to all mma fighter articles. I have amended and provided sources for both the infobox and the lead section (thanks again for the sources provided). One thing to note, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." see 8.6.1 Mixed martial arts - point 7 and Wikipedia:But it's true!. If the sources provided wrong info, we will only correct it when the sources corrected itself. I think Sherdog might have a typo entry for Allens' page and hope they will corrected that in time. Lastly, I thank you why Twinkle would allow you to do that for bringing this to my attention and discuss in a civil manner. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Alright cool, thank you!! :) I got a bit frustrated with that haha but please I don't mind you doing the edits on things if you feel they are wrong or need editing but just do please kindly check before hand if you can as it is a little frustrating. I'm only here to do my best and contribute to Wikipedia the best I can also so it really is a case of that for me and as I've got quite a bit of knowledge on this it makes sense to contribute fairly. Yeah, the ESPN source though is the official source so as we know it's going to be correct there anyway (I'll keep an eye out on the Sherdog thing in future also) but Arnold confirmed himself which obviously there is no better source than this however hopefully it'll be alright now. It must be frustrating for the fighters too when their info is wrong and it's keeps being reverted to that also I imagine so hopefully it'll be alright now and thank you. Lets just work together to get this place the best it can be :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

G13 deletions

Hi. Just a head's up, it's no big deal: Today you nominated 2 articles for G13 deletion ("pages that have not been edited by a human in six months") that I edited yesterday. I'm vaguely human :) I'm not sure why Twinkle would allow you to do that? The pages were Draft:Illini Terminal Railroad and Draft:Semo Port Railroad. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

kingboyk Greetings and thank you for informing. The two draft articles which I nominated for G13 were deleted by RHaworth which I received two email notification of the deletions and the see log here. I am not sure of your "Twinkle question". I have nominated G13 many times. The system allows you to nominate a draft article that is over 6 months without any edit during the period (staled draft articles) regardless the draft pages have gone through AfC (submit for review). I do "postpone G13" on draft pages at times if I see the draft seem potentially notable. Cheers and have a good day. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the ping. When I restored the drafts I didn't restore your speedy deletion request, so you're not seeing the full picture (or I've made a mistake - it wouldn't be the first time :)) Let's look at Draft:Illini Terminal Railroad. You can see in the history that I edited the article at 12:16, 1 August 2019‎. That of course resets the G13 counter until 6 months from that date/time.
Actually, let's make this easier - I'll restore your request so you can see for yourself, and immediately revert it. You should now be able to see in the page history (and possibly got a reversion ping):
06:57, 2 August 2019‎ CASSIOPEIA talk contribs block‎ 1,335 bytes +44‎ Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G13). (TW)
So if my reading is correct, you requested the deletion using Twinkle, the day after it became ineligible.
Again, I want to be absolutely clear I have no complaint or hard feelings, it just seems a little odd that Twinkle wouldn't say "hold on, this page isn't eligible for G13 as it was edited within the last 6 months".
I'm doubting myself a bit now so have a look please and if I've made a mistake please let me know. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
kingboyk Thanks for the history link, and now I understand what you meant by "why Twinkle would allow you to do that". I am a little bit perplexed now as why Twinkle/Wikipedia system did not registered it was edited a day before. Maybe is is a bug in the TW system for I TW CSD has no G13 in the drop down list for non-staled articles. Anyway, I thank you for bringing this to my attention and than you for the civil/polite conversation. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
kingboyk Correction (see my strike through sentence above. I meant - may be TW does not have a "parameter" / bug in the system to check if a draft page is a staled article as TW CSD has G13 in the drop down list for non-staled articles. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

CVU training request

Hi. I want to join the Counter-Vandalism Unit and am thus asking to be trained. My timezone is UTC−08:00, and I will be able to set aside time for training between 8:00 PM to 3:00 AM UTC. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AnUnnamedUser, Greetings. Thank you for interested in counter vandalism. Pls have a look the "Goals" and "Syllabus" sections below to understand the requirements needed at the end of the course in order to graduate from CVSCHOOL.

Goals

If you're new and/or inexperienced, before embarking on a Counter-Vandalism training programme, you should be able to demonstrate that you have already mastered the basic principles of editing the encyclopedia and contributed at least 200 edits to MAINSPACE. If you have previously been warned or requested to follow guidelines, you should have demonstrated that you have addressed these issues.

When you have shown through training that you have mastered the principles of Counter-Vandalism and can apply them with accuracy, and can communicate correctly and effectively with new users of all kinds you may be able to apply for permission to use restricted tools, such as, for example Rollback, and STiki that will enable you to semi-automate the process, while understanding that speed alone is not essential - the target is accuracy. When you have achieved these goals, you can display the {{User CVU0-en}} userbox on your user page.

Syllabus

Competency Fail Pass
Knowledge and Understanding of Concepts

Able to correctly define and describe:

  • Cannot describe these concepts at a comprehensible level.
  • Unable to differentiate the difference between vandalism and good faith edits
  • Does not understand the key purpose of reverting vandalism
  • Can concisely and elaborately describe each of these concepts.
  • Can describe the proper use of warning templates and how to correctly make an AIV submission.
Critical Thinking

Able to review historical reversions and identify whether such reversion were correctly categorized

Correctly assessed fewer than 85% of the examples provided by their instructor. Correctly assessed at least 85% of the examples provided by their instructor.
Communication

Able to effectively communicate with other editors regarding reversions

Communicates inconsistently with editors via talk page comments or in response to editors who question or challenge their reversions. Communicates in a polite and professional manner and avoids biting other editors and harsh comments.
Application

Effectively applies the concepts and tools of vandalism fighting in a productive and proficient manner.

  • Cannot consistently revert vandalized pages correctly.
  • Is inconsistent in use of warning on user talk pages or uses incorrect warning templates
  • Has reverted fewer than 50 instances of vandalism in the two weeks prior to graduation – or – has reverted more than 50 instances of vandalism with a high degree of incorrect reversions.
  • Demonstrates proficiency in performing reversions, either manually or with a tool (Twinkle, etc.).
  • Consistently leaves the correct messages on vandal’s talk page explaining the reversion, and is able to further explain the vandal their reasoning behind the reversion if prompted.
  • Has accurately reverted at least 50 instances of vandalism in the two weeks prior to graduation.

Please note that there are many editors who were interested in counter vandalism course and abundant the program mid way due to lack of anticipation of the amount of efforts/time needed in reading the program material, doing assigned "homework" and exams requirements . The program has no timeline set, as the editor would progress through the course work at their own time. Generally, it would take an editor 1.5-2 months to finish the course. So do prepare yourself for lots of reading and homework if you intend to proceed with the program and do let me know the reason for interested in this program. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I fit all of the requirements to begin training and am ready to do so. My reason for interest in this program is to make my current recent page patrolling more effective by identifying vandalism more accurately, communicating more effectively, etc.. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi AnUnnamedUserGood day. I set up assignment 1 for you HERE. Please make sure you enable WP:Twinkle and know how to provide hist diff - see here Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. Once you have done the assignment and would like to get it review then ping me on the sub page (at the end of the assignment). I will usually review the assignment a day after you ping me. Do raise any questions after review if there are any, if not and you are ready to proceed to next assignment then let me know and I will post it accordingly. One thing to note - very important - Do NOT revert more than 3 times within 24 hours on the same page if the edit you reverted are NOT considered blatantly vandalism for you will be blocked. Please bear in mind. Welcome to CUVA. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, I was reverting vandalism on Colby. So go harass someone else.

Go look again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioio32l (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ioio32l Greetings. The IP user removed the vandalism edit - see here-1 and you reverted it back and added back the vandalized edit - see here -2 and this is the edit of yours which I sent the warning message to. I think you revert the wrong version. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we work together

I want to be better so i offer a collab where you can send me announced bouts or main events for the UFC and I will put them on the page and you can edit if I do anything wrong NunesVsAndrade (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NunesVsAndrade Greetings. Wikipedia is all about collaboration with other Wikipedia as all articles are the work of many editors as long as the editor adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. I have sent you a welcome message as well as a list of info on editing mma related pages in Wikipedia and make sure you follow the guidelines. Few things to remember, info added need to be supported by source (inline citation), sources such as from newspaper or reputable sites. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - see WP:PROVEIT. For MMA sites (sources) you would find in info from MMA Junkie (US site), MMA Fighting (US site), Sherdog (US site), In The Cage (Poland site), Combate (Brazil site), MMA DNA (Holland site), Kimura (Sweden site) and etc just to name some. Once you have read all the info I sent you and if you have any questions, pls pop back here. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a question Cassiopeia why is your username Cassiopeia and also I don’t know where to get info NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please reply as I will have to go places due to me being busy please reply by 12:00 PST NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please reply as I will have to go places due to me being busy please reply by 12:00 PST NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the info but can you just tell me why your username is Cassiopeia NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the info but can you just tell me why your username is Cassiopeia NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the info but can you just tell me why your username is Cassiopeia NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the info but can you just tell me why your username is Cassiopeia NunesVsAndrade (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Pardon me, but how is adding the bonus awards to a UFC event deemed vandalism? Udar55 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Udar55 Pls provide hist diff, so I may know which one you were referring to. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
You left the message on my talk page with a link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Udar55#August_2019 Udar55 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Udar55 My appologies. It was meant for another IP editor - see [2]. I clicked on the wrong line in Huggle and place the warning in your talk page instead. I have removed the message and placed in the IP talk page just know. Once again, mistake is all mine. My bad. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-32

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 August. It will be on all wikis from 8 August (calendar).

Problems

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 7 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Today everyone can see IP addresses if someone edits without an account. In the future this could be more hidden. This is to protect unregistered editors so fewer can see their IP address. This would only happen after we make sure the tools for vandal fighting can still be effective. You can read more and comment.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #376

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Fix logging for errors on wbcontentlanguages requests (phab:T228888)
    • Add request information to request timeout errors (phab:T228885)
    • Show an error message when saving fails on mobile termbox (phab:T222884)
    • Add editing widget/input to client edit modal (phab:T226998)
    • Show the current Wikidata value in the Bridge modal (phab:T226997)
    • EntitySchema datatype (phab:T214884)
    • Reduce the number of ResourceLoader modules that WikibaseClient register: (phab:T203696)
    • Reduce text returned by EntityContent::getTextForFilters (phab:T226216)
    • Fixed a bug with PHP Warning (phab:T229482)
    • Fixing a bug about value pickers being broken (phab:T229604)
    • Fixed BadMethodCallException wbgetentities when getting Lexeme subentities (phab:T223995)
    • Investigate on Graphoid issues (phab:T229236)
    • Fix issues on Wikidata Tours (phab:T214884)
    • Make logging warning or info of not finding entity for revision configurable (phab:T229574)
    • Fix Grafana Datamodel References dashboard (phab:T214894)
    • Move "Wikidata item" link outside of "toolbox" sidebar to "other projects" sidebar (phab:T66315)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

The UFC Now page

By the way if you want to go with the idea of merging UFC Now into the Ultimate Fighting Championship page then we can do that if you like however would you be able to help with this? I think it would be nice if we could include the info box too (you know like how some single Wikipedia's do when they've had a cover, they'll have a separate section for the cover version that is notable and include the info box) can we do this as I think it would be nice for the article, as well as of course all the info that is on the stub there as it's something that needs it's inclusion on Wikipedia I feel.

Also, I know Wikipedia were wanting to expand the American sports television series and Ultimate Fighting Championship television series categories which is why I think some people created UFC Connected and all the other pages in the Ultimate Fighting Championship television series category (kindly have a look at this and you can see all the one's which have individual pages in that category). UFC Now actually fits with them and is actually more significant than some of those which already have pages though I would be happy if we could include the page for UFC Now into the suggested Ultimate Fighting Championship page if you like, however I'd like you guys to kindly contribute to help moving this in there so it's done right and in the right place also :)

I do feel very strongly this show needs that info there on Wikipedia, specially now the show has expanded and become more significant on BT Sport also in the UK, it's one of the most leading shows now and this needs noting along with the info about the show which is on the article.

Thank you so much and hope to hear from you soon!! :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Just to add, if you see the Television part of Ultimate Fighting Championship all those shows have got separate pages, this is where I felt UFC Now fit because the info that's on the draft I feel is quite important it's noted on Wikipedia also. As I say if you can include the draft into the Ultimate Fighting Championship page then that's absolutely fine but to just put the title "UFC Now" on the page wouldn't be right because the relevant info that's on the draft needs to be noted which I feel is quite important, so if we can work together on this to get that included then that is absolutely fine, however thank you :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Music Editor 2017, Good day. There are two options. 1. you can include the info (condense version - one /two sentences) to UFC's Media section and supported by sources. 2. Wait and look for more independent, reliable sources (from major newspapers) where sources talk about the program and add it to the draft and resubmit for review. The draft page will be in Wikipedia for 6 months from the last edit. If the draft page is deleted 6 months later, you can always get a WP:REFUND.
All articles are the collaboration of work from many editors. As long as the editors adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, everyone is welcome to edit the page. If another more experience editors revert you edit or decline your draft articles or send you warning message, instead of getting angry, read the message and click on the link provided (blue highlighted text) and find out why. After reading the link and you still have questions, then ping the editor and ask "politely" and to seek to understand what could be done or how to prevent it or why your edit deem not constructive. All you have to do is ask politely, you will receive tons of help. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Can I kindly ask, CASSIOPEIA why are other pages such as Fox UFC, UFC All Access, UFC Connected, UFC Primetime, UFC Tonight, UFC Ultimate Insider, UFC Unleashed all ok to have pages in the article space approved (some with only one source) yet with UFC Now I have used not only most of those sources that passed the other pages but also many more which you're being difficult with considering this is sourced much much better with lots of hard work put into this. Also the things you mentioned about to not use is pretty much eliminating everything out there which clearly sources the show, it's a bit silly ruling all that out to be honest and with any TV show like UFC shows articles are going to only reference them at best as part of the article (which by the way some of those sources are completely about UFC Now anyway). Also the news sources that were added on the other pages were good enough for them and exactly the same with articles only referencing them but for why aren't they good enough for UFC Now considering UFC Now is now a leading long running TV show and also on TV such as BT Sport in the UK every week it is very contradicting, I can't help but feel you enjoy denying people's work and you're being a little awkward if I'm really honest. Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Music Editor 2017, Please see WP:OTHER STUFF EXIST. Please note some reviewers are new and do not know the guidelines well and accepted some articles which did not meet notability guidelines, some were accepted because the reviewers thought they had notability potential and hope the article would be improved by interested editors and many slipped pass the reviewing processes as we have only a very limited reviewers/patrollers where at any time there are thousands of new pages/draft pages waiting to be reviewed (at the moment we have 10.5K articles in backlog waiting to be reviewed). Articles which do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines will/might be nominated by interested editor no matter how long the article existed in the mainspace. We the editors and reviewers are all volunteers for such certain articles, (about 1 million out of 5 million) are low quality articles which many of them do not meet the notability requirements, which yet to be improved (adding independent reliable sources) or nominated for deletion. Only articles truly meet the notability meet the notability will stay in Wikipedia for good. You have several draft articles were declined and you claimed one of my declined was a bad decision which I was very hard on you. The article was declined again by another editor on the same ground. I understand there is a lot of work to create an article as I have created about 200 article myself. As new editor yourself, as I was one before, I understand there a many guidelines in Wikipedia which would take sometime to familiar for to edit in Wikipedia it is a steep learning curve sometimes. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi CASSIOPEIA so why have you edited and contributed to UFC Connected, UFC All Access, UFC Unleashed and UFC Tonight by adding them to the "UFC television series" category recently and yet UFC Now which is much better sourced and well put together isn't good enough for you? Bare in mind 3 of those pages above only have one source on the page.
Why are they ok yet UFC Now is twice as extensive, much better sourced and is a long running shows which has expanded across international TV now such as BT Sport isn't? Because you've encouraged the growth of those pages by adding them to the "UFC television series" category.
I agree with you that articles are difficult and I do work hard on them also, simply because I enjoy contributing and helping Wikipedia's growth and I also have a lot to give, I don't just want any page included but these are pages I feel are significantly missing from Wikipedia's inclusion, this is the reason I work on them and yes it is a very steep learning curve you are absolutely right but I still believe you have been incredibly unfair and I see a few comments on your page from others who feel the same (I don't mean that as a knock of course).
Please know I'm not one of those who gets upset just because work is declined, I think people only ask you to be fair and when there's reviewers who aren't doing this it discourages us to want to contribute because they know the problems they are going to face with certain reviewers.
Now if all of a sudden you decide to change your mind and put those pages you've worked on for a deletion request then it's pretty clear what I've mentioned is correct, it honestly doesn't make any sense.
I hope this helps you understand a little more and thank you also :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Music Editor 2017 I am not being unfair but adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. A topic not in Wikipedia doesnt mean an automatic inclusion as per Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are many area you would contribute, have a look at Maintenance and collaboration resources. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Please kindly refer to the first and second paragraph, I'm asking you kindly to explain this please and thank you. Music Editor 2017 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Music Editor 2017 That are the Wikipedia:Short description - see history page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA It's a broken page? Did you not do them personally, was it like a bot thing which did this? Edit: Oh it's there now, let me have a read :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Music Editor 2017 it is a short description script which I added from Wikipedia so I could see the short description field at the top of the article. When the short description is edited/added to the page, the edit summary is generated automatically. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA Ah I see, that's what I was confused about. I was going to say if you did them manually that would have made no sense for you to do so as it would contradict everything (I'm sure you get what I mean). It's much better when you explain by the way than sending links to pages for people and thank you!! :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Knuckles

Who are you to say that Robbert Whittakers other names are not Bobby Knuckles ( The fans nickname) / The Bi-racial angel ( a name his coach Fabio has given him) ? sorry mate but you are just being a complete SJW. Im going to edit it everyday and keep changing i back so you might as well just not bother— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:830c:5400:60a3:df01:48e7:23ee (talk) 17:45, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2407:7000:830c:5400:60a3:df01:48e7:23ee, Good day. Pls note the info on the infobox is as per Sherdog.com (at the bottom of the infobox) and it is sourced. You have provided unsourced info. Pls also read WP:MMA to familiar yourself on mma related article guidelines. If you continue to make disrutpvie edit, you will be warned and will be blocked/banned if your continues. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Please check this link https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Robert-Whittaker-45132 which will show you at the top recognized by sherdog mma that in fact one of his other names is Bobby Knuckles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:830c:5400:60a3:df01:48e7:23ee (talk) 17:58, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

'

Hi 2407:7000:830c:5400:60a3:df01:48e7:23ee, Yes, but there is no "The Bi-racial angel" as per your edit. I have seen you placed "Boby Knucles back as per source. Again Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion

Hi Anthony Appleyard Good day and thank you for informing. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting prompt review of List of books about anarchism

See Draft:List of books about anarchism#A dozen references added. -NorsemanII (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NorsemanII Greetings. Pls see comment on draft article. Btw, independence reliable sources can be in any languages and group sources for stand alone list article is acceptable (but not for normal article). Find as many sources as possible and ping me when you have done that. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again! Your rejection comment here states that the references are just the books themselves. While I believe that practice would be acceptable, as you appear to also believe (see below) it is nonetheless inaccurate and makes it seem like you are rejecting the article without properly reviewing it.
In the version in question, the added reference list at the bottom includes (in order):
    1. A book that is not on the list, but probably could be.
    2. An introduction page to one of the books.
    3. A Political Science Quarterly journal review of one of the books.
    4. The book itself (my bad - copied second reference on the book's page, based on the date it looked like it included a foreword/commentary by another author, but it does not). This has been fixed.
    5. A journal review by The American Historical Review.
    6. A book that is not on the list.
    7. A Social Anarchism journal review of one of the book.
    8. A book that is not on the list.
    9. An American Political Science Review journal article reviewing one of the books.
    10. A book that is not on the list, but probably could be.
    11. An Anarchist Studies journal review of one of the books.
    12. A journal review by The Philosophical Quarterly of one of the books.
Furthermore, even though the version you rejected had an added reference list at the bottom, I pointed out in my request to have the article restored that there was nonetheless a precedent of lists of books which did not need or have added reference lists at the bottom:
    1. List of historical novels
    2. List of popular science books on evolution
    3. List of environmental books
    4. List of books about negotiation
    5. List of mythology books and sources
Since those lists are still intact, it looks like you either agree that they do not need added reference lists at the bottom, or that you did not review the article very thoroughly before rejecting it.
I have fixed the one reference that cited itself. I am asking that you review the article again and either restore it or explain why you are rejecting it while not rejecting the other articles I have mentioned. -NorsemanII (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
NorsemanII Greetings. What I meant was the sources can not be the book itself that would make it a primary sources but a review of the book from independent reliable would do. I came across your article when I do my review work and not going through all the other "list you mentioned" for we are all volunteer. All stand alone list need sources just like any other article - see WP:STAND. I am off to work now and will come back to look at your article later of the day and at the mean time any source refer back to the book itself, pls remove them. Thank you and Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
NorsemanII Not sure you got the message above. Please not Wikipedia/Wikisource can not be the source or any of the books listed themselves (whether they are introduction or the content) for they are primary sources. The sources need to be secondary reliable sources - such as reviews that published by journal or newspaper. Pls remove them.thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)
I'm confused. I have two dozen references cited in the version you are now referring to, and none of them are Wikipedia/Wikisourced or self-referential. Please explain. -NorsemanII (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
NorsemanII Reviewed based on what I can find on the net and not the book sources. I have added a ref column and placed the refs there and removed the original book text/audio. On "1991" "Anarchy and Christianity" there 2 refs seems not quite right. I could not find the initial refs. If the 2 are reuse ref then a "/" should be place before the '>" and no "</ref>. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA, it looks like you accidentally deleted the references on Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers. That should be pretty easy to fix. But why did you remove the links so people could read/listen to the books? It's a list of books.-NorsemanII (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

CVUAC Training Request

Hey there. I was a frequent vandalism editor a year ago but school and whatnot hit and I had to take a break. I've now comeback and intend to assist in preventing vandalism on Wikipedia pages. I'd like to refresh myself with the cvuac course. Would you be okay with being my trainer?Thelost byte (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thelost byte Greetings. Pls see the my reply - "Goals", "Syllabus" and message CVU training request - here . Let me know if you would be able to spend the time for the program then let me know the reason why you want to enroll in the program. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Honda Center has been nominated for discussion

Category:Honda Center, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Tatay & R. Yamanaka

Hi! Would these articles pass out of the draft as stubs? They are still very young riders (esp. Tatay) and most info about them is available in native language sites or the Red Bull Rookies Cup profile which is linked already anyway. They have a bright future ahead so I just wanted to get them a head start on wikipedia. Tatay is barely 16 yo and will probably be a full-time rider next season given he leads the Rookies Cup this season. --Bullflower (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bullflower Good day. An article could be a stub and be published in Wikipedia mainspace if the subject meet the notability requirement and the content policy of Wikipedia where by the content claimed need to support by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not merely passing mentioned for verification. The subjects of your drafts for the current stage do not meet the requirements for not meeting requirement at the moment. Please see WP:GOLDENRULE and WP:NMOTORSPORT requirements. Let me know if anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

G13s

Hello, CASSIOPEIA,

I just wanted to thank you for all of your tagging of stale drafts. I know there are hundreds on the list and it might seem like one hardly makes a dent. But every little bit of work helps and we someday we will get all caught up! Thanks again for your work. Liz Read! Talk! 13:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz Greetings and thank you. Just doing one of my regular gnomish works :). cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your Teahouse post - typo?

Hello CASSIOPEIA, I believe you meant WP:SPI instead of WP:ISP in your latest Teahouse post? WP:ISP exists, but seems to be a defunct, outdated page. Just fyi, in case it was a typo. Happens to me too all the time :). GermanJoe (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi GermanJoe good day. Thank you for informing. It was a typo :). corrected at TH. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #377

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • The open source geocoder w:en:Nominatim used by the OpenStreetMap project is participating in the Google Summer of Code with an internship working on integrating Wikidata as a ranking metric for its search results. Check the development blog.
  • Development
    • Fix a caching problem on termbox (phab:T228978)
    • Investigate options for termbox load testing (phab:T229790)
    • Use thumbnail preferences for thumbnail of Commons media file (phab:T224189)
    • Add tags parameter to Wikibase APIs that edit entities (phab:T229917)
    • Move "Data item" link outside of sidebar toolbox (phab:T66315)
    • Create Maintenance Script to Remove Terms in a Language from Current Revision (phab:T222606)
    • Fix Grafana Datamodel References dashboard (phab:T214894)
    • Add editing widget/input on Bridge (phab:T226998)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Tech News: 2019-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • 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. Feedback on the discussion page is appreciated. [5]
  • Due to the absence of volunteer maintenance of Cologne Blue skin, the link to activate it will be hidden. The skin will still work, but editors using it are encouraged to switch to another skin. [6]

Changes later this week

  • Due to Wikimania, there is no deployment this week. [7]

Meetings

  • Recurrent item Advanced item You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The "Wikidata item" link will be moved from "Tools" to "In other projects" section on all Wikimedia projects, starting on August 21. Full announcement, Phabricator task.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you:

Dear Cassiopeia

Thank you for your help, it is truly appreciated. Be well! Yumi4us (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yumi4us Welcome. Let me know if anything I can help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much for your kindness, & overall understanding; because of your expertise I've been able to process the information much better. Be well! Yumi4us (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yumi4us Greetings and thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I was looking at the counter-vandalism academy page and I saw you were able to teach peoplr with 1 space remaining. I think I'm ready for this so would you please use up that lasts space for me. Thanks ThePacificMan (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

ThePacificMan Greetings. thank you for interested in the program. Participant required to have minimum 200 main space edits to join the course and as per todate you have edited 123 in mainspace - see HERE under "Namespace Totals ". Once you have edited 200 mainspace and still interested in the program, then pop back there and let me know. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassiopeia/Archive_28&oldid=946020829"