| Revision as of 22:37, 11 June 2011 view sourceBizovne (talk | contribs)83 edits →Bizovne, Iaaasi← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:09, 11 June 2011 view source Coren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →Template:Sexual slang: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :::Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (''15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility'') and his activity on Misplaced Pages). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous :) Best Regards. --] (]) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | :::Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (''15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility'') and his activity on Misplaced Pages). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous :) Best Regards. --] (]) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Template:Sexual slang == | |||
| The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version. :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should ''still'' be removed preemptively.<p>I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:09, 11 June 2011
| This is AmandaNP's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
Please post all questions, comments or concerns related to the bot on the Bot Subpage
PP at Miss World 2011
You have just PP'd Miss World 2011, probably after seeing my note at WP:RPP. There is nothing fishy going on: these women's entries are effectively one-line BLPs, as at Miss Universe 2011. IP editors and SPAs in particular are coming in with nationalist tendencies, adding uncited heights etc, or increasing their own favourite's height and sometimes decreasing the height of an opposition candidate. It is trivial stuff in my world but not trivial to the contestants. I explained the situation to User:Orlady yesterday for the other article and she semi-PP'd that one, which has made a difference already. She seemed to accept the BLP situation and that my reverts (and sometimes also those by other people) were protected by the 3RR exception for BLPs.
I am actually trying to find cites for all this stuff but, tbh, I'm more into industrial history and Indian castes than beauty pageants & so it is an on/off sort of job.
Hope this explains. There is nothing particularly fishy about it. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, full protection is likely to be counterproductive because there are apparently new contestants being announced all the time due to staggered national competitions. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion, by fishy I mean, I didn't fully look into weather it was vandalism or BLP vios because either way it warranted the same protection. And I'm pretty sure I only did semis, if I did do full, let me know. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
 Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!
 There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.
The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters (talk), Diannaa , Tea with toast (Talk), Chaosdruid (talk), and Torchiest (talk). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Eugene Burger
Please follow {{PROD}} removal instructions at Eugene Burger. I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well if your going to revert that one, might as well start on the the other ~27. :) User talk:Alwayspericulum and Special:Contributions/Alwayspericulum might help explain. This is also possibly a sock, but this user is not new to Misplaced Pages. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All I am saying is if you are going to remove the tag, follow procedure to do so. The template tells you what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- So for a person who spammed 43 deletion tags in a matter of minutes + that being their only contribs, and that I blocked, you think I should have followed the procedure for everyone of them? ... That's excessive and very time consuming. The user already has a denied reviewed block. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All that you have to do in the edit summary is say something like "RV WP:PROD by WP:SOCK WP:SPA" in each edit summary I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the mass revert script doesn't allow me to do that. Maybe talk to User:Timotheus Canens to have that changed. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All that you have to do in the edit summary is say something like "RV WP:PROD by WP:SOCK WP:SPA" in each edit summary I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- So for a person who spammed 43 deletion tags in a matter of minutes + that being their only contribs, and that I blocked, you think I should have followed the procedure for everyone of them? ... That's excessive and very time consuming. The user already has a denied reviewed block. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- All I am saying is if you are going to remove the tag, follow procedure to do so. The template tells you what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Misplaced Pages-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Block of User:86.8.218.114
Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now looking over the diffs a little better, it does look more like it is not vandalism directly, and maybe this should of been the block reasion: "Edit Warring: Continuous adding of incorrect information" or something along that line. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. If they come back after their latest block I will, if I notice, try to help them. I get the feeling they were jumped upon for not conforming to some obscure standard on airport standards and although they were told about this it escalated way too quickly to accusations of vandalism (which as far as I can see it never was) and comments like yours may help if they do come back as I'll fell more able to say to them "it wasn't vandalism but you were doing things wrong". Apart from one initial attempt there was never any attempt to explain things to them, e.g. the idea of consensus was never mentioned. Hopefully we haven't lost a potentially useful contributor. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Block of Arnithorri
I see that you have blocked Arnithorri for vandalism. Certainly that is the way the editing looked at first, but looking deeper I don't think it was. I am inclined to unblock, but thought it better to consult you. You can see my reason at User talk:Arnithorri. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey James, thanks for pointing this out. The "vandalism" I went on was the last two diffs, and the smileys add to the article back in '07. It's clear now after looking back that the smileys belonged, and that the last two edits were probably a misunderstanding. Just thought I would give you where I came from on the "Vandalism" part. Anyway, again thanks for pointing this out and I hope to see you around. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I too saw the last couple of edits as vandalism at first, but I didn't see the smileys. Also, having thought about it a bit more, I do think that there is a significant element of AGF in assuming that the latest edits were not vandalism, as I wonder about the motivation for wanting to delete the article. However, I think we can afford to assume good faith: we can always reblock if there is any continuation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, AGF in the fact that it wouldn't continue. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I too saw the last couple of edits as vandalism at first, but I didn't see the smileys. Also, having thought about it a bit more, I do think that there is a significant element of AGF in assuming that the latest edits were not vandalism, as I wonder about the motivation for wanting to delete the article. However, I think we can afford to assume good faith: we can always reblock if there is any continuation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out...
Hey there, I do thank you for your assistance in the last article after an IP address attempted to re-add an unreferenced entry or source of former employees as per BLP material set by another user. I will still continue to monitor the article, however. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Courcelles internet was the only reason that I portected it :P but anyway there is an SPI for the guy now. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Bizovne, Iaaasi
Hello DeltaQuad,
I would like to bring these matters to your attention on the grounds that you told at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne that "On hold pending further investigation, hoping to be back in 1 or 2 days. Poke me on my TP if i'm not back."--Nmate (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, so I looked over the evidence again, there is still some ties to Stubbes99, I hope that this is just one of them playing sock, and not a third party now involved. But i'm tired of evasion by these two and am hoping this is not a meat, so I have endorsed. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad, In my opinion, Bizovne is not a sock of Iaaasi, they are in cahoots with each other for certain purposes. Bizovne is Slovak, and Iaaasi is Romanian. The two countries they live in, are not even adjacent with each other, but both are bordered by Hungary.
- And because Iaaasi is blocked from editing Misplaced Pages, and because Bizovne can't speak English even at a basic level, and because they both pamper a grudge towards Hungarians( ) ¶ () for historical reasons, they have superabundantly enough reasons to be in cahoots . So that Bizovne is a recruited meatpuppet of Iaaasi, and not a sockpuppet of him.--Nmate (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad, In my opinion, Bizovne is not a sock of Iaaasi, they are in cahoots with each other for certain purposes. Bizovne is Slovak, and Iaaasi is Romanian. The two countries they live in, are not even adjacent with each other, but both are bordered by Hungary.
- Hi DeltaQuad. In my opinion user Nmate does not like Slovak editors (just look at his blocking history (15:15, 22 April 2008 Elonka (talk | contribs) blocked Nmate (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility) and his activity on Misplaced Pages). I don't know lassi and Nmate's allegations are ridiculous :) Best Regards. --Bizovne (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Sexual slang
The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version. :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should still be removed preemptively.
I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — Coren 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)