User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Seraphim System. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
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) 23:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mike Chang (fitness trainer)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mike Chang (fitness trainer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2018)
Hello, Seraphim System.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Liqueur • Louis IV of France Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Please comment on Talk:Albert Cashier
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Albert Cashier. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
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
- The design on Special:Log has changed. It will change again soon. Developers are working on fixing problems. [1]
Problems
- Deployment of 1.32.0-wmf.13 has been partially delayed. All deployments have been resumed and successfully done after bug fixes. [2][3]
- Deployment of 1.32.0-wmf.14 has been partially delayed. [4][5]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 August. It will be on all wikis from 2 August (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 31 July at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
-
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 August at 15:00 (UTC) as well as at 23:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- After a community discussion, a new group for users will be created. "Interface administrators" will be the only users allowed to edit interface pages like MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js. This is done to avoid technical issues and improve security. That change will be effective by the end of August 2018.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Seraphim System, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2018)
 Anna Anka is a Swedish-American model, actress and author.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Club drug • Liqueur Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Please comment on Talk:Imran Awan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imran Awan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Glyphosate-based formulations
Just a note that I redirected your recent new article back to glyphosate. That's in part because it's not the Roundup article that had been discussed, but also that such a title is entirely redundant to the glyphosate article (more so than if it was Roundup). Please read the discussion so far on the talk page. You were already aware that there were issues with doing this, so do be mindful of needing to hash out such details in discussions of sandboxes first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I undid this, no it's not. No editor needs your approval to create independent notable articles and you absolutely can not just blank them because WP:JDL. There is a ton of content in that article that your redirect blanked without justification and none of what you are saying above is accurate or supported by reliable sources. There are important regulatory differences in how the two are treated, especially in the EU. Seraphim System (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Read my message below first that I wrote before your reply. Anything in that article was either already redundant with the glyphosate article or far from WP:DUE, which you were already cautioned about in talk page discussion. Again, please slow down and come to the article talk page. Some of this touches on WP:FRINGE territory, so we already need to be careful, but you're also missing important scientific details with DUE in mind that are tripping you up right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I just saw the revert notification. Please keep in mind it was not article blanking. As I said above, you were already aware this was going to be a problem based on discussion already. You're also in violation of WP:1RR, so please undo your revert and slow down a bit. The expectation is that when someone makes a new edit and it gets reverted, they need to gain consensus for it. Also, please keep in mind that it becomes disruptive when someone says they are going to charge ahead without gaining consensus and labeling anyone calling that out as disruptive. This isn't a shoot first and ask questions later type of topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know about 1RR or that this was an Arbitration area otherwise I would have immediately filed a complaint at AE. This isn't only a science article. This a law and history of agriculture article. Splitting them is completely appropriate and there is support for it on the talk page. You can address issues about what you think is FRINGE or UNDUE at the article talk page or at noticeboards, not by blanking the article. And no editor needs a consensus to create a new article - there are tons of sources for this, like all the content about alfalfa that you blanked that isn't discussed in the Glyphosate article. If editors want to discuss moving the title to Roundup or something like this, that is fine, but it should be handled through a RM proposal, not page blanking. Completely unacceptable. Seraphim System (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Though I would point out that reverting page blanking is within 1RRNO but I will prefer AE to edit warring if it is repeated.Seraphim System (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is no WP:1RRNO, but the fact remains that you were already cautioned about this in discussion and didn't gain consensus for this. Take my advice and slow down. Editors who come in hot-headed into this topic like you are doing right now pretty much always end up burning themselves out and missing important details, especially since you are mistakenly citing JDL. There was also caution about such an article turning into a WP:POVFORK in thos same discussions, which is what some of your edits are already introducing. I'm going to wait and see what other editors do for cleanup first, but after cleanup, it's looking like we're just going to mirror glyphosate as it is. Also, do not misrepresent my edits. No WP:BLANK occurred. That was a WP:REDIRECT that you were already aware was going to happen based on talk page conversation if the page was created haphazardly without some guiding discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to make changes to the page then propose those or discuss them. I'm not a science expert,
I'm a law expert.my educational background is in law. The issue of the different levels of regulations is significant. The EFSA has made the di stinction, it is formally supported and it is discussed by high quality secondary WP:RS. Not everything about this topic is about science. There is also enough content and history to create a standalone article about Roundup Ready Corn by the way. There is no policy anywhere in Wikipedia that says everything about this needs to be added to one article. That's not how article creation works.Seraphim System (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)- Again, please slow down. No one is an expert here at Wikipedia. We all just need competence in the subject matter, and in the intersection you are talking about, we need it both in the science and the law. The alfalfa stuff isn't really germane to an article about specific formulations, and you're frequently relying on known fringe sources like Carey Gilliam, USRTK, etc. You're starting down a path that ends up with those editors often topic-banned, so I'm trying to give you some guidance to head that off, especially since it looks like you've had problems with in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds like you want to file a complaint at AE, which is not something I can help you with. Can you show me the noticeboard discussion about Carey Gillam as a source? I'm relying on the Guardian which published this, so I don't really see how this is FRINGE.Seraphim System (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Again, please slow down. No one is an expert here at Wikipedia. We all just need competence in the subject matter, and in the intersection you are talking about, we need it both in the science and the law. The alfalfa stuff isn't really germane to an article about specific formulations, and you're frequently relying on known fringe sources like Carey Gilliam, USRTK, etc. You're starting down a path that ends up with those editors often topic-banned, so I'm trying to give you some guidance to head that off, especially since it looks like you've had problems with in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to make changes to the page then propose those or discuss them. I'm not a science expert,
- There is no WP:1RRNO, but the fact remains that you were already cautioned about this in discussion and didn't gain consensus for this. Take my advice and slow down. Editors who come in hot-headed into this topic like you are doing right now pretty much always end up burning themselves out and missing important details, especially since you are mistakenly citing JDL. There was also caution about such an article turning into a WP:POVFORK in thos same discussions, which is what some of your edits are already introducing. I'm going to wait and see what other editors do for cleanup first, but after cleanup, it's looking like we're just going to mirror glyphosate as it is. Also, do not misrepresent my edits. No WP:BLANK occurred. That was a WP:REDIRECT that you were already aware was going to happen based on talk page conversation if the page was created haphazardly without some guiding discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Though I would point out that reverting page blanking is within 1RRNO but I will prefer AE to edit warring if it is repeated.Seraphim System (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't know about 1RR or that this was an Arbitration area otherwise I would have immediately filed a complaint at AE. This isn't only a science article. This a law and history of agriculture article. Splitting them is completely appropriate and there is support for it on the talk page. You can address issues about what you think is FRINGE or UNDUE at the article talk page or at noticeboards, not by blanking the article. And no editor needs a consensus to create a new article - there are tons of sources for this, like all the content about alfalfa that you blanked that isn't discussed in the Glyphosate article. If editors want to discuss moving the title to Roundup or something like this, that is fine, but it should be handled through a RM proposal, not page blanking. Completely unacceptable. Seraphim System (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- On Gilliam, see for example [6] and [7]. Not for a moment saying that those are RS that could be used in a BLP, but they give some of the background about why her writing on glyphosate should be treated with substantial caution. This is an incredibly ugly sphere which is why we need to concentrate on only using the best available sources. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- I just want to say here that I strongly support SS's creation of the new article, and I thank you for having created it. I do not want to see it made back into a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm giving you a heads-up that you just barely violated 1RR on the new page.Please be careful, because it's easy to get caught. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)- I'm going to piggyback here, but that actually is a violation of 1RR as having a revert that is easily considered gaming. Seraphim, it would be a different story if that was part of constructive edits rather than a blanket revert by trying to edit war content back in (e.g. even though I did the former and replaced your content with roughly agreed upon content to copy from glyphosate, I'm still careful of following the spirit of 1RR). You're quickly getting yourself in hot water, especially since you've been blocked for 1RR/edit warring violations in the past, so please pay attention to what people are saying at the talk pages. At this point, you at least need to undo the reverting back in of your own content and gain consensus as would be expected of my own new edits after you undid them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is the second time you've accused me of violating 1RR when I haven't. I don't think your massive removals of content are constructive.If massive removal of sourced content continues like this as well as the addition of massive amounts of specialized technical content then I'm not sure what to do - maybe it will have to go to AE, especially the removals. Usually specialized technical articles are disambiguated as such - that usually isn't needed for Chemistry the way it is in Law where everything is Mistake (law) but in this case there is room for an article that is non-technical and I think the goal of not being too technical is fundamental. Seraphim System (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I apparently worded my previous note too vaguely,
so I'll say now that you did violate 1RR in that it was slightly less than 24 hours.If I had thought it was blatant I would have gone to AE myself, but I want to cut you some slack because it was so borderline.But it was 2 reverts within 24 hours,and you really need to be careful. KoA, please let me suggest that you not reply further in this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)- Which two reverts? If I did violate 1RR I'll self-revert but it's generally good practice to post diffs of the reverts also. This was a self-revert [8] Seraphim System (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I want to apologize to you. I was wrong. I can't figure out now what I thought I saw, but I must have gotten something confused. I'm sorry, and I've struck some of what I said earlier. Anyway, I see that you self-reverted anyway, and that was a very helpful move to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it was this: [9], followed by the revert today of KofA's 16 edits (that you now self-reverted). They were slightly more than 24 hours apart, and I somehow got the timestamps switched in my mind. My bad. Anyway, it's best not to even have reverts separated by only that much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's a relief, it just scared me a bit. Yes, it is easy to get confused, better safe than sorry.Seraphim System (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which two reverts? If I did violate 1RR I'll self-revert but it's generally good practice to post diffs of the reverts also. This was a self-revert [8] Seraphim System (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I apparently worded my previous note too vaguely,
- This is the second time you've accused me of violating 1RR when I haven't. I don't think your massive removals of content are constructive.If massive removal of sourced content continues like this as well as the addition of massive amounts of specialized technical content then I'm not sure what to do - maybe it will have to go to AE, especially the removals. Usually specialized technical articles are disambiguated as such - that usually isn't needed for Chemistry the way it is in Law where everything is Mistake (law) but in this case there is room for an article that is non-technical and I think the goal of not being too technical is fundamental. Seraphim System (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to piggyback here, but that actually is a violation of 1RR as having a revert that is easily considered gaming. Seraphim, it would be a different story if that was part of constructive edits rather than a blanket revert by trying to edit war content back in (e.g. even though I did the former and replaced your content with roughly agreed upon content to copy from glyphosate, I'm still careful of following the spirit of 1RR). You're quickly getting yourself in hot water, especially since you've been blocked for 1RR/edit warring violations in the past, so please pay attention to what people are saying at the talk pages. At this point, you at least need to undo the reverting back in of your own content and gain consensus as would be expected of my own new edits after you undid them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Pesticide DS
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Your closure
Hey, I just reverted your closure and I said that "Sorry for the revert, we don't vote in Wiki and we don't count votes when assessing consensus. I suggest you close it as 'no consensus' or leave to a more experienced user."
I hope the revert did not annoy you. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Mhhossein Its not proper way to do it.As you have voted in RFC.If thought SS closure was improper you have should raised the issue at WP:AN/I-- Shrike (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely shouldn't be no-consensus - the outcome there is rather clear, even if SS's rationale may need improving they assessed the discussion properly. A no consensus close is usually in WP:BADNAC - non-admins usually shouldn't close discussions that are too close to call (and no consensus is by definition usually such).Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it's no consensus, the close is supposed to assess the consensus not to offer my own opinion. As I said in the close several editors raised objections about NPOV and I thought I had mentioned it but I thought Pincrete, Calthinus and K.e.coffman made particularly strong arguments that this content was not appropriate/detrimental for the See Also section. If the explanation wasn't satisfactory, it should have been discussed and then I would have either modified the closing rationale or it could have gone to AN/I. Under no circumstances should any editor involved in an RfC revert a close unilaterally, and I've restored the close with the modification. Seraphim System (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't insist on 'no consensus'. We don't have vote counting in Wikipedia. In fact, it's wrong to say "I count 4 votes either solely for neither or expressing a preference for neither as a first choice, 2 for both...", rather you'd better rely on the guideline based arguments. The closure is better now, although those vote countings are still seen. --Mhhossein talk 17:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I count" is just a figure of speech and I'm pretty sure I've seen admins use it in RfC closings, so I assumed it was ok. Closers definitely are supposed to count votes, but it is not the only factor. Those votes should be explained based on policy or sourcing, not just statements of opinion. If I had thought this was a difficult close, I would have left it for an admin. I noted here that editor's were concerned about NPOV and also that inclusion in the See Also section was not appropriate. Strength of the argument is not the same as agreeing wit the argument. Most of the editors seem to support neither - some for NPOV reasons and some because the content should be worked into the article. I think that is still a consensus for neither. This isn't capital punishment law, we don't need unanimous agreement for each justification given by editors.Seraphim System (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- SS did nothing wrong here. I'm pretty sure any admin would have made the same decision looking at the !votes. But if you want to raise issues about it this isn't the place anyways. --Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting the decision, rather the VOTE argument is certainly faulty. I'm enough by this. --Mhhossein talk 13:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- SS did nothing wrong here. I'm pretty sure any admin would have made the same decision looking at the !votes. But if you want to raise issues about it this isn't the place anyways. --Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- "I count" is just a figure of speech and I'm pretty sure I've seen admins use it in RfC closings, so I assumed it was ok. Closers definitely are supposed to count votes, but it is not the only factor. Those votes should be explained based on policy or sourcing, not just statements of opinion. If I had thought this was a difficult close, I would have left it for an admin. I noted here that editor's were concerned about NPOV and also that inclusion in the See Also section was not appropriate. Strength of the argument is not the same as agreeing wit the argument. Most of the editors seem to support neither - some for NPOV reasons and some because the content should be worked into the article. I think that is still a consensus for neither. This isn't capital punishment law, we don't need unanimous agreement for each justification given by editors.Seraphim System (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't insist on 'no consensus'. We don't have vote counting in Wikipedia. In fact, it's wrong to say "I count 4 votes either solely for neither or expressing a preference for neither as a first choice, 2 for both...", rather you'd better rely on the guideline based arguments. The closure is better now, although those vote countings are still seen. --Mhhossein talk 17:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it's no consensus, the close is supposed to assess the consensus not to offer my own opinion. As I said in the close several editors raised objections about NPOV and I thought I had mentioned it but I thought Pincrete, Calthinus and K.e.coffman made particularly strong arguments that this content was not appropriate/detrimental for the See Also section. If the explanation wasn't satisfactory, it should have been discussed and then I would have either modified the closing rationale or it could have gone to AN/I. Under no circumstances should any editor involved in an RfC revert a close unilaterally, and I've restored the close with the modification. Seraphim System (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely shouldn't be no-consensus - the outcome there is rather clear, even if SS's rationale may need improving they assessed the discussion properly. A no consensus close is usually in WP:BADNAC - non-admins usually shouldn't close discussions that are too close to call (and no consensus is by definition usually such).Icewhiz (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gross-Rosen concentration camp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- FYI Corbyn is under 1RR. The other editor just reverted you, so no need to self-revert since you weren't formally aware of the BLP sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warning. I was about to self-revert, but he had already restored the content. Seraphim System (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
3RR Warning on Brett Kavanaugh
I consider this edit extremely close to violating 3RR even though you invoke 3RRNO. In the future, please follow what 3RRNO says and consider the BLP Noticeboard or request page protection instead of continuing to revert. I have fully protected the page. KnightLago (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@KnightLago: Will do, I hadn't thought of requesting page protection. I don't work BLPs very often, it's too stressful, and there have been other issues with this editor on the article. Thanks for the advice. Seraphim System (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sources
I wanted to take this off-line just to prevent another wall-of-text and extended conversation, but you are brief and succinct, so I thought we might have a side-conversation and I'll bring it back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran#Sources.
I would change my position back to something close to my original position if it was clear that there was a way to identify sources that could be candidates for MEK news stories from Iranian sources.
In the states, for instance, if there is a controversial topic, we generally start with The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and for a conservative, but generally good source, The Washington Post. If we need to ensure that we're getting a conservative voice, we add Fox News for balance. I'm just trying to figure out if there is a place to start... or, a method for evaluating sources as Eperoton described... with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
How can we get there?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is one Routledge source that might be on topic [10] - especially the list of newspapers seems fairly detailed in the ideological orientation of different papers and even notes some of the changes that Tehran Times has gone through over the years. I don't have access to the full list but it's a good reference for anyone who wants to know more about different Iranian newspapers. Seraphim System (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, this is helpful. I have been looking at it and may update List of newspapers in Iran with what pages I can see. Sometimes people located in different countries see different pages, so I'm not sure if we're seeing the same pages. I am guessing that "pro-reform" would be most likely to veer away from the government stances on topics.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods
I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. I appreciate input from you as you were involved in discussion on Israel related topics. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
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
- You can now use global preferences on Wikimedia wikis. You can set them on the global preferences page. [11]
- You can now see a new log of pages being created at Special:Log/create. It includes pages which are later deleted. It is now available on all Wikimedia wikis except Commons and Wikidata. [12]
- You can see how many pageviews a wiki had from specific countries. The Wikistats2 maps have now been updated. [13]
Changes later this week
- Your watchlist will show changes from the last seven days instead of three. If you have already set a length preference it will not change. [14]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 17. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from July 18. It will be on all wikis from July 19 (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on July 17 at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on July 18 at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- Some articles have messages to readers about problems with the article. For example that it does not cite sources or might not be neutral. Readers do not see these messages on the mobile version. The developers now want to show them. You can read more and leave feedback.
- You can use
<inputbox>to create search boxes for specific pages. For example to search the archives of a community discussion page. Instead ofprefix:Page nameyou will see a text that explains which pages are being searched. You can read more and leave feedback.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sierra Hull
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sierra Hull. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
3RR Warning on Brett Kavanaugh
I consider this edit extremely close to violating 3RR even though you invoke 3RRNO. In the future, please follow what 3RRNO says and consider the BLP Noticeboard or request page protection instead of continuing to revert. I have fully protected the page. KnightLago (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @KnightLago: The editor Seraphim appears to have previously made a pledge to you to refrain from further editing of the Brett Kavanaugh article in order to gain some form of leniency during the review of his previous inclination to make multiple reverts in this article. Now, after you have responsibly closed the RFC, he appears to be taking the first opportunity he has to start reverts on the page of material which has been in the article for several weeks. I request that Seraphim restore the material he has deleted today with no consensus on the Talk page, and that he stop from further edit reverts without Talk page. His reverts of the main article page without Talk has been disruptive to the other editors of the page who have used the Talk page usefully without forcing their own edits into the article as Seraphim appears to wish to start repeating again. Please restore your two deletions today and return to the Talk page for discussion. How many times are you planning to keep forcing your own edits into the article without Talk discussion. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't made any such pledge in exchange for any type of leniency. All I said was I was done with the content dispute. Please don't post on my talk page again, I am archiving this. So far my edits to the article have removed 1 Wordpress blog non-RS, 1 source that was agreed to be non-RS on the talk page and reverted a BLP violation from an IP who was a block-evading sock puppet. That said I have wasted all three of my reverts on routine cleanup and maintenance and sadly have none left to "force my own edits into the article". Seraphim System (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: User Seraphim is being notified that he is continuing a process of sequential reverts to force his edits into this article which he started on August 4. Previously, when he was reported and warned by admin, he then pledged that he was "done" with editing the page in order to obtain leniency for his sequential reverts here [15]. Now that the page protection has been lifted, Seraphim has returned to reverting sequentially again and is now refusing to undo his edits and begin Talk page. He has no consensus and is again not responding to requests to stop sequential reverts on the page. I am requesting that Seraphim undo his edits made today and return to Talk page for discussion since he has no consensus for either of his deletions today. He is refusing to start Talk on this. KnightLago has not signed on since yesterday evening when he removed the page protection. Please restore the page to when KnightLago removed page protection. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop posting on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: User Seraphim is being notified that he is continuing a process of sequential reverts to force his edits into this article which he started on August 4. Previously, when he was reported and warned by admin, he then pledged that he was "done" with editing the page in order to obtain leniency for his sequential reverts here [15]. Now that the page protection has been lifted, Seraphim has returned to reverting sequentially again and is now refusing to undo his edits and begin Talk page. He has no consensus and is again not responding to requests to stop sequential reverts on the page. I am requesting that Seraphim undo his edits made today and return to Talk page for discussion since he has no consensus for either of his deletions today. He is refusing to start Talk on this. KnightLago has not signed on since yesterday evening when he removed the page protection. Please restore the page to when KnightLago removed page protection. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't made any such pledge in exchange for any type of leniency. All I said was I was done with the content dispute. Please don't post on my talk page again, I am archiving this. So far my edits to the article have removed 1 Wordpress blog non-RS, 1 source that was agreed to be non-RS on the talk page and reverted a BLP violation from an IP who was a block-evading sock puppet. That said I have wasted all three of my reverts on routine cleanup and maintenance and sadly have none left to "force my own edits into the article". Seraphim System (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
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) 00:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ayn Rand
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayn Rand. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Nadine Dorries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nadine Dorries. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Caucher Birkar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caucher Birkar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eugene Gu
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eugene Gu. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Asha Degree
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Asha Degree. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
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) 23:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2018
- From the editor: If only if
- Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality
- Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose
- Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes
- Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else
- Technology report: New bots, new prefs
- Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons
- Humour: It's all the same
- Essay: Wikipedia does not need you
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
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) 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
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
- Special:NewPages now has the OOUI look. [16]
Problems
- The MediaWiki version that was released two weeks ago was late to some Wikimedia wikis. This was because of bugs. It was on all wikis 30 July. [17][18]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 August. It will be on all wikis from 9 August.
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 7 August at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 8 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Philip II of Spain
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philip II of Spain. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Martha McSally
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martha McSally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
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
- CSS in templates can now be stored in a separate page on all wikis. This is called TemplateStyles. This is to make it easier to edit how templates look. [19]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 14 August at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The developers are planning more ways to block users. This could be blocking someone from just a page or a namespace. You can read more. You can leave feedback on the talk page. [20]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Death year and age
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Death year and age. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
August GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter
 Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part.  Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
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) 23:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jeong
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jeong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Brett Kavanaugh Notification
Please see this. KnightLago (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2018)
 Guacamole is an avocado-based dip, spread, or salad first developed by the Aztecs in what is now Mexico.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Anna Anka • Club drug Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
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
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 August. It will be on all wikis from 23 August (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 22 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The 2018 Community Wishlist Survey begins on 29 October. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals from 29 October to 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 16 November to 30 November.
- Legacy JavaScript global variables have been deprecated for seven years. They will soon be removed from all wikis. Gadgets and scripts that use them will stop working. You can test your community's gadgets on "group0" wikis. For example Test Wikipedia or mediawiki.org. The legacy JavaScript global variables are already disabled there. You can read the migration guide to fix old scripts. [21]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dennis Prager
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Prager. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)