User talk:RoySmith/Archive 33

3129:(in my opinion, order that they appear) and also make it easy to see a different option. I'll go a little further. I'm working on doing some referencing and occasionally I'd like to see the oldest reference in an article, so let me expand on your suggestion and say that our house style should also incorporate the ability to search on a number of key variables. Order in which it appears is one obvious choice, name of author is the one you talked about, dated of the reference is the one I just added, but others might make sense as well. What if someone wonders if a particular publishing house appears more often than another one? Sorting by publisher would help make it easy to see, at least in a particular article, which publisher is more common. I don't need to dream up rationales for all variables, but as soon as you implement a feature that allows you to sort on two variables, it is only a modest extension to allow the reader to sort on just about any variable.-- 383:

to objectively edit (ie doesn’t think TC has anything to do with CU, or that all TC grads don’t get CU degrees, even if it’s in the legal name of the college and they know what the Charters and Statutes say, and worse) can you please protect the page from more harm? He has already done shady edits trying to eliminate citations and has extensively debated and come to agreements which he disowns and then doesn’t edit the wiki to be more accurate... but instead creates straw men to win over administrators and get users blocked. HamiltonProject has proven they are not to be trusted to edit accurately and without bias...

877: 525: 3581: 2408: 2360: 426: 2418: 2374: 514: 436: 3508:, Everything you did was fine. You had reasonable suspicions and reported what you knew. No problem there. There's no worry about revealing private information; you don't have access to anything that anybody else doesn't also have access to, if they wished to go digging. As for uw-login, you could have issued that warning yourself, but there's no reason you needed to. It's not unusual for an SPI report to result in just issuing a warning with action beyond that. In short: no worries. -- 31: 2339: 415: 472: 454: 2350: 536: 612: 2795: 2767: 2152: 2129: 1692: 3333: 2809: 2181: 1876: 1669: 1125: 585: 4029: 3189: 2247: 1981: 2397: 503: 1761: 180:, I don't think we can refuse to draftify or userfy a deleted page until the requestor supplies sources. If they don't add good sources, it won't (or at least, shouldn't) get accepted. If they bypass review and move it back to mainspace themselves without improved sources, it can be moved back to draft. If they persist, we can move onto salting the mainspace title, and after that we've got blocking available. -- 2437: 554: 3574: 3149:, Thanks for your note. The real gist of my suggestion is that the data and the presentation are two different things. This is not a new concept. HTML vs. CSS. Wikitext vs. skins. Etc. By adopting a house style and requiring that people use that style, we're right back to conflating the two. What we want to do is capture the raw data, which means using the standard {{cite ...}} templates, and <ref: --> 3899: 3523: 3796:"final" versions. I'll massage them together, add more stuff, and will hopefully eventually have something worthy of mainspacing. I'm actually pretty experienced (see my user page) so would rather not do AfC because that sometimes takes a long time, but since you're so responsive, when I think it's ready, would you like me to ping you so you can give it a once-over? In any case, thank you again! -- 2968: 2331: 495: 773: 3993: 3786: 269:"fundamental" to cover that. As far as I can tell, you were not absolutely opposed to draftification. You were willing to consider it, but only under certain conditions, namely that sources were presented first. Yes, it's true that I didn't enforce the "sources must be presented before restoration to draft space", but I really don't think I mis-represented your position. 1000:(after all, it's a globally blocked user and a sock puppet with a history of chronic, incorrigible cross-wiki abuse, and the IP address is only used by this user, so there should be no collateral damage). Plus IP addresses can be blocked for months, years or even indefinitely when needed (it is not only allowed, but it does happen quite frequently). Thanks.— 4039:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Knowledge can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 3813:, There's no obligation to do AfC. I just routinely offer that as a suggestion anytime I see somebody looking to work on any article with a questionable history. I should warn you, I'm pretty much of a deletionist. If, given that, you would still like me to take a look, I'll be happy to respond to your ping. -- 3167:

I'm also sympathetic to the idea that we should be as inviting as possible to newcomers. We don't want the requirement to format your citations in any specific way to be blocker. If you want to enter your citations in some weird style, that shouldn't be a reason to decline a draft at AfC. Somebody

3124:

I recently made my own proposal in that discussion. I contemplated incorporating support for your notion but I wanted to make my proposal as clean as possible. However, on the very low chance that the reason support for my proposal, if we do adopt a house style, I think that choice should incorporate

1820:

A temporary fix helped wikis make their main pages more mobile friendly. This was in 2012. It has not been recommended since 2017. The mobile main page special casing stopped working 14 July. 60 wikis now have main pages that don't work well on mobile. You can see which ones, how to fix it and how to

999:

confirm that (and requesting image deletion is even more hopeless, as Wikimedia Commons is gravely understaffed, virtually unmaintained—they don't even do routine, automatic tasks anymore). The user is obviously determined to do this forever, so I really think this IP address needs a long-term block

382:

HamiltonProject is sabotaging the Teachers College page now after warring on the CU page... him and the shady admin he has befriended Yamla already tried to delete a message I sent to you btw... his convictions about TC are inaccurate and severely negatively biased by his obvious conflict of interest

3745:

back in 2014 and presumably deleted the page. Meanwhile, the contest has gone on, and gotten more coverage, and I think the article about it would meet our standards with a bit of work after recreation. Would you be so good as to restore the article, with history, to my userspace, so I can prove it?

3603:

Featuring artist-Wikimedian Sara Clugage's "Picnics: An Outside History" for a cultural exploration of picnicking, knowledge and society during the national panel in the first part. We encourage you to call in for the second part from a local park or natural site and share it on the video stream, as

3155:

Some of the arguments people are making are logical. For example, some people have said that in some fields, it's very important who wrote something, and when you see (Smith 2020), that gives you immediate information without having to go look up the citation details. I imagine that's particularly

3890:

Thanks for the caution! Would you be willing to make a friendly bet? When I'm ready to push this live (in a few days to a few weeks, I'm not the fastest writer, which is why I asked for it to go to my userspace), and you still believe it not notable, you may nominate it for AfD. If it's deleted, I

3161:

Somebody also made the astute point that wikipedia is mostly read on-line (where "mostly" should be read as "virtually always"). We already have mouse-overs; hover over a numeric citation and it shows you the details. If you preferred to see those mouse-overs in a different style, just load some

3128:

I accept that there are good reasons for wanting to sort the references by author, but there are equally good reasons for wanting to sort the references by the order in which they appear in the article. I think I'm summarizing your point to say that we don't have to choose — we can pick one option

2882:

I had not noticed until after I reverted the change that a DYK was imminent, and I have no horse in this race. I was simply the reviewer who approved the AFC draft. The reason I am showing this to you is because I imagine y9u ay wish to enter into the discussions (on the article talk page, my talk

3846:

This topic and all its progeny have been deemed not notable on more than one occasion at AFD. The SALT should stand and if it is ever removed and the article re-created, I will send it back to AFD again if not nominate it for speedy deletion. The page is on my watchlist and that is how I learned

239:

As I said at the beginning, I'm not arguing with your draftification. What's done is done. I'm taking exception to you not recognising that I opposed it. Telling me over and over that your decision was better than mine is not really relevant. It might be better, but that's not the point. The

1472:

Hi RoySmith - Thanks for your review. I made some changes to the page to address your suggestion that it reads like an advertisement, including removal of one external link and vetting that all of the citations listed point to primary literature publications. Would you mind taking another look?

808:

I'm sorry, what is it you want linked? I hvgave you the contribs of both, pointed out the common articles, the commonality in their editing. It's basically the same information that Grayfell provided on the previous SPI. This is a pretty obvious DUCK sock. Should I take it directly to a CU?

3926:

Thanks for your help, Roy! I pinged William and a subject-knowledgeable user on my draft article talk, but they didn't say anything, and have both edited Knowledge since that ping, and it's been several days, so it looks like they're not going to say anything. Since your comment didn't seem to

268:

I pointed out in my close that better sources would be required. That seemed to be your major concern. By "no fundamental objection" (note: "fundamental"), I thought I was covering that. I originally wrote it as "no objection", then realized that you had a qualified objection, and added the

2726:

A bug in the Wikibase extension had disabled the "move" and "create" types of protection in the main (Gallery) namespace on Wikimedia Commons. New protections could not be added, and existing protections were not enforced, allowing some page moves and page creations that should not have been

274:

Maybe I didn't make it clear in my closing statement how I differentiated "no objection" from "no fundamental objection" in my mind. If you would like to suggest some alternate wording, I'd be willing to consider amending my closing statement to more accurately present your stance. --

1042:

Thanks! Again, I apologize for bypassing the SPI—I very rarely, if ever, contact admins directly. But after many years of experience with the standard practice at SPI, sometimes a reasonable person might despair. But if the disruptive editing resumes, I will take it to the SPI

3156:

important in highly specialized fields where most of the researchers know each other's work (i.e. "are familiar with the literature"). But that's a presentation issue. Once you've got the data in a machine-readable form, you can present it any way you want via software.

994:

has expired and the user is editing the same articles and files again, in particular (re)adding images that are most likely copyright violations. Sorry for contacting you directly, but I'm sure you know that dealing with IP addresses at SPI is very problematic, and

1060:, Yeah, I hear you. No problem with asking me directly, especially if it's a case of ongoing and immediate damage like it was here. But, maintaining a long-term history of cases in SPI also has value for spotting trends and helping with future investigations. -- 1504:

and make any appropriate disclosures. I also see you originally posted your query at The Teahouse and then changed your mind. That was actually a good place to get advice. My suggestion is that you restore your post there an see what people can tell you. --

1396:. Of course, people argue about what qualifies as "well-known and significant". One typical (but not definitive) test is whether we have an article about the award. I don't know what a RIBA award is, but I'm assuming it's not "well-known and significant". -- 3650:

We especially encourage folks to share your parks and foods on screen, and add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster for the Zoom portion, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

160:

draftification took place. If I was on the same page as you I would have draftified it myself when requested to do so. In my opinion, it's likely that this will be tinkered with and chucked back into mainspace with no substantial improvement in sourcing.

2094:

is now available for wiki communities. This page lists technical resources, tools, and recommendations. These are essential to operate a wiki project. This is mostly useful for smaller wikis where the community has limited experience with this.

2874:

I imagine you are watching the article about Mr Little's lynching carefully with a DYK pending, so you will have noted my reversion a few minutes ago and the discussion I have started on the talk page. What you are unlikely to have noticed is

4020: 2920:

I have clipped three images of the April 5, 1919, edition of the Chicago Defender, showing the story and its placement on PG1. I do not own the copyright and cannot figure out how to present the images to satisfy the request of Gulbenk.

3607:

Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. The Wiknic is taking the place of "WikiWednesday" this month, so we will also include

1358:

Thanks for responding - I have no relationship to Chris Dyson. I'm interested in architecture and architects and like the understatement of what he is doing. I am finding my way around Knowledge and he seemed a worthy subject.

1243:). The whitepaper (15-page PDF) addresses zERT directly (in the title and across the main topic). It is also the author's own evaluation and analysis of how to get the most out of zERT when tracking mainframe network traffic. 115:

that no one had a fundamental objection to that is incorrect. I had an objection and said so in the DRV, but perhaps not strongly enough. That would certainly not have been unclear to Djm-leighpark, I stated that with force

3354:

All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 1. This is planned between 13:30 and 15:30 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks.

388: 1382:

My personal opinion is that an article about a professional doesn't need to say anything about their family (married with two children...). To be fair, I'm sure you will find many reviewers who disagree with me on

144:. That's what I was trying to make clear when I noted that, "better sourcing will be required to meet WP:NCORP before this can be moved back into mainspace." I think we're actually both on the same page here. -- 1536: 1843:

There is a problem with the interlanguage links. The interlanguage links are the links that help you find a specific page in a different language. The sorting is broken. The developers are working on a solution.

1571: 1225: 240:

point is you stated in the close that there was no opposition to draftifying. That's not true and I haven't changed my mind. Your selective quote from me above is IDHT. The bit you seem not to have heard is

3732: 327:. I would want the report to proceed as quickly as possible, so do you maybe have the time to assess it and approve checkuser request? I have made the same request to another active SPI clerk, Sir Sputnik.-- 1275:, This is the third time you have posted this to my talk page over the past two months. I have already provided an answer in my comments on the draft. Please stop posting the same question repeatedly. -- 3825:

Thanks for the offer, and the warning! I'll look upon it as a friendly challenge. I like "saving" articles with questionable histories, I've done it a few times before, they're listed on my user page. --

1377:, OK, well looking over the draft again, and my original comment, I said it was too promotional. That's a bit of a subjective call, but the way it's written, it sounds like a resume or autobiography. 1146:

Abstract Knowledge is a new Wikimedia project. It will collect language-independent information that can be easily read in different languages. It builds on Wikidata. The name is preliminary. You can

996: 1327:

I have made changes responding to your comments, changing syntax, editing info and adding /fixing refs to news items. Do you have any other advice before I formally resubmit the page? thank you

3600:

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

3299:

became standard features on all Wikis during the first week of August. They help you transfer files from local wikis to Wikimedia Commons with the original file information and history intact.

1174:

and invalid HTML will no longer be allowed in user signatures. Nested substitution will not be allowed. A link to your user page, user talk page or user contributions will be required. You can

357:

I did hope for a quick CU process, but it's okay, I understand that there's more to it than approving the case of the next phase and that it requires some time to provide a wider assessment.--

1388:

I'm also not a big fan of listing all the minor awards they've won. That's really what makes it sound like an advertisement, and why I assumed you had a relationship with the subject. What

1307: 1265: 3742: 4093: 2743:

will change to be simpler and more modern. This week, the current beta feature will become the video player for everyone on most non-Knowledge wikis. The old player will be removed.

2740: 3340:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from August 12. It will be on all wikis from August 13 (

3944: 3755: 2816:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 4. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from August 5. It will be on all wikis from August 6 (

2883:

page seems like the wrong venue). I have no desire to take further part in them, having no horse in this race. I think the editor made the wrong edit for the right reasons.

2188:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from July 29. It will be on all wikis from JUly 30 (

1883:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 July. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 July. It will be on all wikis from 23 July (

1676:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 July. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 July. It will be on all wikis from 16 July (

384: 651: 2547: 1635:

Everyone was logged out a couple of weeks ago to fix a security problem. The problem was not entirely fixed. Because of this everyone was logged out once again last week.

628: 4063:- just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. 1566:

Fair enough! There once was an endless supply of those kinds of articles, but there are far fewer now. I'm glad you were able to help save one, and I do appreciate that.

1561: 1132:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 July. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 July. It will be on all wikis from 9 July (

3224: 2958: 2020: 1956: 1774: 1575: 1532: 1567: 2521: 2603: 2571: 647: 156:

No we're not on the same page. My position was that a new source had to be offered (or that an existing source had information that had been previously overlooked)

1018:, Could I ask that you record all that at SPI. That gets it into the record for future reference. Ping me when you've done that and I'll take a look. Thanks. -- 892:

made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Knowledge. Here's what happened since its introduction:

700: 3460: 2579: 2449: 1295: 1272: 1253: 447: 443: 439: 2611: 1240: 104: 3895:.) If, instead you agree that it is notable, or it passes AfD, you will write or noticeably improve one article of my choice. The encyclopedia wins either way! 3311:

The mobile skin displays a message at the bottom of the page about who edited last. This message showed raw wikitext. This has now been fixed. Some messages in

3009:

Thanks for the alert, but by the time I logged in this morning, the XfD had already been speedy closed. I would have argued to keep. Given that I had already

2976: 2988: 2587: 2555: 2539: 655: 3499: 3374: 2835: 2207: 1918: 1722: 1193: 2480: 112: 1787: 660:

all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles

3972: 3951: 3114: 2563: 3394: 3243:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2855: 2462: 2297:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2227: 2039:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2030: 1938: 1742: 1213: 566: 517: 3118: 2665: 1950: 1754: 636: 2319: 234: 219: 131: 3234: 2627: 1441: 601: 1968: 1540: 1403: 1352: 1282: 3768:. Note that the mainspace title is salted, so you'll need to get somebody to unprotect it for you. Given the history, you might want to go through 324: 2473: 968:, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available. 397: 3471: 3461: 2635: 3454: 1456: 855: 837: 818: 803: 788: 765: 366: 352: 298: 287:

Nah, I don't want to pointlessly beat anyone up any further. It wouldn't change anything. Anyway, thanks for explaining that you considered it.

282: 255: 187: 172: 151: 2595: 2498: 2288: 677: 102: 3438: 3296: 1650: 345:, Unfortunately, SPI cases get handled as people find time. It's impossible to predict exactly when somebody will take a look at your case. -- 3726: 3544: 3515: 3175: 3102: 2649: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2353: 2137: 539: 3878: 3855: 3552: 3262: 3025:

Out of curiosity, why are you opposed? I can self-refund and relist the discussion if there's a compelling reason to continue the discussion.

712: 429: 4036: 4022: 3053: 3034: 3020: 2914: 2619: 2503: 2429: 2425: 2421: 1037: 827: 682: 392: 3912: 2363: 2057: 1368: 1336: 4060: 4005: 3986: 3834: 3820: 3805: 3779: 2411: 1111:

extension has been disabled for now. This is because of a security issue. It will work again as soon as the security issue has been fixed.

643: 242:

I declined to userfy this when requested because no new sources were offered...just rehashing the already rejected material seems pointless

1167: 1067: 1052: 1025: 980: 3963: 3935:

into a redirect there? There are many, many existing Knowledge articles that already refer to it and will link there once that's done. --

3688: 199:

As I see it, if they move it from draft to mainspace and bypass AfD, then that's the chance blown: it becomes G4 material. All the best!

3871:, he has the right to try. It's premature to make proclamations about what he can find until he's had a chance to do the research. -- 2493: 2367: 1901:

link. This will disappear. That is because web browsers today can create a printable version or show how it will look in print anyway.

826:, I was referring to linking to the SPI you created, so I could find it. I ended up scanning your contribution history before I found 672: 2953: 3181: 3010: 2757: 1973: 1496:

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, this still sounds like you're trying to sell the product, which I assume you are. Please read

217: 2121: 1147: 2314: 1657:. Missing translations will also be marked in the future. This markup can sometimes break things. It can soon be disabled by using 1426: 3382: 3370: 3284: 3269: 2843: 2831: 2787: 2709: 2687: 2672: 2215: 2203: 2078: 2063: 1926: 1914: 1830: 1826: 1808: 1793: 1730: 1718: 1599: 1584: 1201: 1189: 1095: 1080: 3406: 1303: 1261: 1512: 1160: 3790: 2972: 2653: 2718: 2113: 1241:

https://www.intellimagic.com/resources/whitepaper/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-ibms-zert-for-tracking-mainframe-network-traffic/

3891:

will write, or noticeably improve, one article of your choice, on any subject. (Or, if you prefer, try to find three images;

3706: 3378: 3086: 2839: 2324: 2211: 1922: 1726: 1197: 402: 3140: 3013:, it might have been nice to have given me a chance to state my objection. Not going to make a big deal over it, but... -- 1108: 336: 2661: 2517: 749: 696: 4043:, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like 2771: 2133: 2101: 1620: 4086: 3433: 2527: 1858:

problem. The developers are working on understanding the problem. If you have trouble logging in you can see the details

956: 2091: 1239:

I think the references provide signification coverage in secondary sources, especially in this downloadable whitepaper (

918:

have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the

117: 2960: 3283: