Jump to content

User talk:Cassiopeia/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68→Archive 70

Sherdog Sucks it's literally incorrect go to tapology

Tonyfergusonfan (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Tonyfergusonfan, Good day. You can have your own personal opinion; however, this is Wikipedia and as per Wikipedia WP:MMA guidelines, the fight method is as per Sherdog. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
And as per WP policies, you can use any WP:RS and are not limited to using Sherdog. Cassiopeia, you know this, please stop misinforming people. You never did respond to my question re sourcing - it's dropped down to your most recent archive, if you'd care to? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Bastun Most IRS, not RS, is the same as Sherdog. If many IRS indicates the fight method is different that of Sherdog, then discussion can be raised in the article talk page as we have gone through many times. Nothing to add or discuss further. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Once you accept that per consensus, RfC and policy that Sherdog can't be decreed to be the only One True Source, than agreed! All the best, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bastun: this person likes to act as the MMA gatekeeper on wiki, message is falling on deaf ears. Sixone63 (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
If you dont agree with the AfD nomination of Paddy Pimblett, pls do to the AfD and state your case for it is the right venue to do so and not on my talk page. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WP:MMABIO

Hi,

This is regarding your nomination for deletion of ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Pimblett))

One of the reasons listed by you is that this subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights under top-tier promotion.

I agree with this, and probably wouldn't have created this article in the first place but I wasn't aware of this rule lol (sorry, I am new to Wikipedia).

I need your inputs regarding a number of articles that do not meet these criteria either. Examples are (( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Isaev )), (( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Cooper_III )) & (( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Palmer ))

Not to come across as pointing fingers, but please explain how these articles meet the Notabiltiy policy?

Thanks Wickedwiki2 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wickedwiki2 Good day. (1) I have explained the notability requirements at the AfD. (2) , Wikipedia is a project edits by volunteers and all the reviewers are also volunteers. this means there are hundred of thousands articles do not meet the Wikipedia notability requirements are in the mainspace due to the either the reviews marked article reviewed and did not understand the notability guidelines especially the sport specific notability (SNG) and didnt nominate the article to be AfD or editors who read the articles do not understand the notability guidelines and do nothing (majority of the case), or no one actions. Many articles of such stay in Wikipedia until someone actions. (3) Ali Isaev represented his country in 2008 Summer Olympics that would pass WP:NOLYMPICS/ (4) Lance Palmer is a four-time NCAA Division I All-American and won a silver medal that would meet WP:NCOLLATH. (5) Ray_Cooper_III I AfD this article. (6) Another editor and I keep track of all UFC fighters up coming notable fighter and place the article in main space/review them when they have fought their 3rd fight in UFC. I believe Pimlett would be notable by end of 2022, unless he is cut before then or suffers a bad injury which needs a year to recover (such as broken leg), or somehow his fight got cancelled/postponed a few times for whatever reasons. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk)
Cassiopeia Makes sense, thanks for your contributions! Seems like the MMABIO criteria might need to be revised soon lol, as according to them even Jiří Procházka's article shouldn't be in the mainspace yet (even though he is the #2 lightweight in the UFC!). But I understand that's a separate discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedwiki2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, July 30, 2021 (UTC)
Wickedwiki2 MMABIO also includes fighters who have been ranked Top 10 in the world by Sherdog/Fight Matrix. Prochazka has been ranked 9,8 and 5 - see here. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This article should absolutely not be deleted, wasn't wikipedia created so we can create articles to share info? There is no reason to delete this fighters page because "he hasnt fought in top-tier promotions", who are you to be the judge of that?.... Sixone63 (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Sixone63 Good day. I understand you are new to Wikipedia and might not understand the Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines as per many editors agreement prior they are published and adopted. The AfD nomination is based on Wikipedia guidelines. You have written your message on AfD page and you must (I presume) read the info and links/guidelines presented there of why the article should be deleted. If you haven't, kindly read. Wikipedia is an online enclyopedia, and articles need to pass notability guidelines to be in the main space. Btw, the creator has changed their mind and also vote the article should be deleted after understand the guidelines. When the subject is notable, an article will be creator and publish in the main space. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

New Fighters

Hey Hey, new week new fighters

Also, I see Paddy fan boys are as annoying as fans off previous hyped fighters, ala Khamzat, Conor, etc. All the best!— Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 03:07, August 1, 2021 (UTC)

HeinzMaster  Done and thank you. Join the AfD discussion if you wish. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tsarukyan

According to your standards unless a fighter shows his citizenship he can't be listed as a fight from x country. By that standard why is Valentina Shevchenko listed as Kyrgyzstani-Peruvian? It should only read Peruvian. Do you not see any inconsistency here? I am trying to avoid a revert conflict here but your edits seem to point to that direction--Moosh88 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Moosh88 Good day and thank you for the message. If you send me a message in any other talk pages, including yours, you need to ping me so I would receive a notification. Valentina Shevchenko do have a Peruvian citizenship and source already indicated in the article - or see here-1. In Wikipedia, the lead sectio (intro) no ethnicity /heritage of the subject should be stated - see WP:ETHNICITY but it can be recorded in the body text (in Background /personal life section). As for Tsarukyan, his heritage has already indicated in the Personal life section. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tapology

Currently doing research for the Tony Ferguson discussion. I just wanted to double check. Is Tapology an allowed source? I believe I've heard somewhere that it isn't here.

RafaelHP (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

RafaelHP You can use it. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright thanks! RafaelHP (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #480

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Portuguese version of the Wikidata Query Service tutorial tool is now available.
    • Advisory board call for members for the Web2Cit project: Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators project is moving! With Diegodlh we are inviting people to apply to be an Advisory Board member. Is this you? Is this someone you know? Check the Call for members and apply to be an Advisory Board member before August 6th!. If you are too busy this time around to apply, don't worry: we get it. You can also help us by spreading the word!
    • The moveClaim.js user script has been updated using code created by Melderick to support changing a property of a claim within an entity. Please switch to the updated version if you used the other one, and report any bugs.
    • New tool: Lexemes Party displays lexemes linked to a list of Wikidata items, so you can improve related lexicographical data in the languages you know. You can build your own lists and several examples are available. A weekly challenge is also proposed, theme of the week: Olympic Games.

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

Tech News: 2021-31

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

  • Advanced item If your wiki uses markup like <div class="mw-content-ltr"> or <div class="mw-content-rtl"> without the required dir attribute, then these will no longer work in 2 weeks. There is a short-term fix that can be added to your local wiki's Common.css page, which is explained at T287701. From now on, all usages should include the full attributes, for example: <div class="mw-content-ltr" dir="ltr" lang="en"> or <div class="mw-content-rtl" dir="rtl" lang="he">. This also applies to some other HTML tags, such as span or code. You can find existing examples on your wiki that need to be updated, using the instructions at T287701.
  • Reminder: Wikimedia has migrated to the Libera Chat IRC network, from the old Freenode network. Local documentation should be updated.

Problems

  • Last week, all wikis had slow access or no access for 30 minutes. There was a problem with generating dynamic lists of articles on the Russian Wikinews, due to the bulk import of 200,000+ new articles over 3 days, which led to database problems. The problematic feature has been disabled on that wiki and developers are discussing if it can be fixed properly. [1][2]

Changes later this week

  • When adding links to a page using VisualEditor or the 2017 wikitext editor, disambiguation pages will now only appear at the bottom of search results. This is because users do not often want to link to disambiguation pages. [3]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 August. It will be on all wikis from 5 August (calendar).

Future changes

  • The team of the Wikipedia app for Android is working on communication in the app. The developers are working on how to talk to other editors and get notifications. You can read more. They are looking for users who want to test the plans. Any editor who has an Android phone and is willing to download the app can do this.
  • The Beta Feature for Discussion tools will be updated in the coming weeks. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL (example).

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

20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hurlstone Park, New South Wales

New information is taken from source cited immediately after the sentence. I don't understand what you have an issue with? --49.255.252.131 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

49.255.252.131 Hi, checked source and you did indicate in the edit summary - my apologies. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Blagoy Ivanov

This was old information, why is it still relevant when it's outdated? 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 144.136.182.22

144.136.182.22, If you going to delete a sourced content, make sure you state your reason on the edit summary and secondly, it is not a outdated info - see here. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, not to be rude but the context I deleted has been updated! It specifies the date "July 12th 2021", and the ranking of him has increased since. So please, look through both pages again and you will see that it has been updated. 19:47, 6 August 2021
144.136.182.22 Ok, but you removed a sourced content - see here. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Cassiopeia(talk) 09:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Peugeot 205

I didn't ADD anything, I only moved stuff about. No cites needed, imv.

HTH

31.49.237.98 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

31.49.237.98 Ok. Cassiopeia talk 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Severna Park High School edits

Hello there! I got your message regarding edits of Severna Park High School. My edits to the page were actually sourced. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is what I referenced for "campus type," which classifies Severna Park High School's campus as "Suburb: large." The enrollment numbers for the 2020-2021 school were also referenced with the Anne Arundel County Public Schools' official numbers in their facility masterplan. Since you said I could re-add the material if it was sourced, I will go ahead and do that. Let me know if you have any other comments or concerns! Thanks for checking on the Severna Park High School page and making sure that information on Wikipedia is as reliable as possible.

Best,

Piskastuff (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Piskastuff You have since added the source. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 06:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #477

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: Finishing work on importing mismatches and moved on to building the API for retrieving mismatches from the mismatch store.
    • Added tags for all edits done through the UI to more easily distinguish them from edits made through tools and other means (phab:T236893)
    • Moved regular expression checking for constraints from the SPARQL endpoint to a dedicated service to make it faster and put less stress on the SPARQL endpoint (phab:T176312)

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

Bellator being top tier

Hi, since Bellator is now considered a top tier promotion, would I be able to create pages for Jason Jackson and Adam Borics? They both have multiple Bellator fights and are ranked inside the top 5 in their divisions.

♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 12:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

RafaelHP Good day. Fighters who have more than 3 fights under Bellator from (Men Top Tier: 2009 through 2015 and 2022 onwards) and (Women Top Tier: 2021 onwards) are notable under the current Wikipedia MMA guidelines. Both Jason Jackson and Adam Borics are not notable currently - see [here-borics and here-Jackson. Most of the Bellator men fighters would be notable by mid of 2023 for those who are still fighting by that time which we presume they would have 3 fights in 18 months from 2022. If any fighters who have fought at least 3 times (combine) under UFC (UFC Top Tier - Men and Women from 1993 onwards), Bellator or Invicta (Invitar Top Tier from 2012 onwards) in the years specified are also notable. - see WP:MMATIER. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 20:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
weird. guess we have to wait 2 years for bellator men to be notable lol. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
RafaelHP It is not weird, the guidelines was passed by consensus agreement - see Proposal: promote Bellator MMA as the top tier promoter for male and female categories - proposal discussion. I have to say it was a success after so "many" discussions and proposals since 2015 to promote Bellator to tier one again - this proposal was successful mostly is because many UFC fighters jump ship to join Bellator; however, in the other hand, many experts who ranked the fighters are too focus on UFC alone even thought they do have majority of the ranked/good fighters that is my opinion on the later. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Well to me that just seems like it hurts Bellator even more. Since people only care about the former UFC fighters who joined Bellator, rather then care about the large amount of home grown talent they have. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
RafaelHP As a fan yes, but Wikipedia has it own guidelines we need to follow. Hopefully, ONE Championships would have more ranked fighters in the future to join top tier for we have witness some ONE home grown good fighters after D. Johson and E Alvarez fought under ONE. Hopefully the ranking experts would look beyond US promotion talent of fighters. Stay safe RafaelHP and best. Cassiopeia talk 06:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-32

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

Problems

  • You can read but not edit 17 wikis for a few minutes on 10 August. This is planned at 05:00 UTC. This is because of work on the database. [5]

Changes later this week

  • The Wikimania Hackathon will take place remotely on 13 August, starting at 5:00 UTC, for 24 hours. You can participate in many ways. You can still propose projects and sessions.
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 August. It will be on all wikis from 12 August (calendar).
  • Advanced item The old CSS <div class="visualClear"></div> will not be supported after 12 August. Instead, templates and pages should use <div style="clear:both;"></div>. Please help to replace any existing uses on your wiki. There are global-search links available at T287962.

Future changes

  • The Wikipedia Library is a place for Wikipedia editors to get access to sources. There is an extension which has a new function to tell users when they can take part in it. It will use notifications. It will start pinging the first users in September. It will ping more users later. [6]
  • Advanced item Vue.js will be the JavaScript framework for MediaWiki in the future. [7]

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

16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

PragerU

Hello, I saw that you reverted my edit on PragerU's page. I believe that you made a mistake. I admire you efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia but I believe that you must have read my edit a bit too quickly. I changed the subscriber and view count of the channel. There is a reference to it next to the number of views and subscribers that the channel has. I just updated the numbers, nothing else.--Der under Smurf (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Der under Smurf Thank you for your message above. Next time pls state update stats as "per existing source", so we may check the info changed against the ref. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeiatalk 01:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It would seem you are doing many hasty reversions, please exercise a little more diligence, and it is always better to fix an edit if possible than to revert it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
MasterTriangle12 content added without source can be removed. Editor should also provide edit summary prior save their edits. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 10:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. But taking a tiny bit more time on your reversions wouldn't seriously impede the enormous volume of edits you manage to make. Aim for quality, not quantity of edits. Also don't forget that WP:V explicitly allows for certain material to not be cited, it seems a lot of people forget that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
MasterTriangle12 It is the burden of the editor who added/changed the content to add the source = see WP:BURDEN - after all Wikipedia is an online enclyopedia and in the spirit as an Wikipedian, content cited so it can be trusted for the quality Wikipedia could provide. Cassiopeia talk 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Obviously, but you are taking the hardest and most conservative approach that you could to content that does not seem "likely to be challenged", and I don't see you using [citation needed] at all, which I find a bit concerning. I do appreciate your commitment to the reliability of content though, editors like you are one of the important parts of what keeps up up the quality of the site, but I think you could be relying on automation too heavily and throwing a few babies out with all that bathwater. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
MasterTriangle12 I appreciate your comments and I do provide personal input on editor talk page sometimes; however, too often editors do not know or do not care to provide source and put cn dont not solve the issues for most of the time as cn would still be there for many years to come and also it does not educate the editors the important of providing sources to support the claim for this is my observation after more than 60K of counter vandalism edits for many years. We need to educate the Editors on how to provide inline citation and commit to BURDEN, (note: The purpose of warning message is to educate the editor and deter editors to keep continuing the same fashion of edits) after all this is Wikipedia and without verifiable independent, reliable sources, which is the Wikipedia core policy and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia would have no value to any readers and would just be a social page of no important and standard. Occasionally I do made mistakes just like every editors in Wikipedia; however, my mistakes is of small values compared to my total counter vandalism edits of about 60K; so far I have about 10-15 editors pointed out my mistakes and I did apologies and removed/striked out the warning on the talk page. For 15 edits over 60,000 out of 180,00 total edits I made, it would be 0.00025% and if my mistakes is 10 folds of what I have been informed times (in the assumption that no one let me know of my mistakes made) it would be 0.0025%. The standard acceptable error is 0.05% (means 3k errors made of 60k counter vandalism edits) which means my mistakes is way low% of the standard acceptable errors. To say all that, I do appreciate you comments. Stay safe MasterTriangle12 and best and good night. Cassiopeia talk 06:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That's reasonable, and I'm at least glad that somebody is doing this stuff. Thanks, and best wishes. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Will restore the change to the Humbaba article that you un-did

I am not a beginner, and you have been most un-helpful. In regards to your remark "because it did not appear constructive" I can only say that I find your assessment appalling. Surely you didn't actually look at it.

To mention only a few crucial changes, you trashed a correction to the authors' names in the citation for the BBC article:

Wrong Correct
Maruf, Kanishk Tharoor and Maryam (9 March 2016). "Museum of Lost Objects: The Genie of Nimrud". BBC News – via www.bbc.com. Tharoor, Kanishk and Maruf, Maryam (9 March 2016). "Museum of Lost Objects: The Genie of Nimrud". BBC News – via www.bbc.com.
{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35755273|title=Museum of Lost Objects: The Genie of Nimrud|first=Kanishk Tharoor and Maryam|last=Maruf|work=BBC News|date=9 March 2016|via=www.bbc.com}} {{cite news |first1=Kanishk |last1=Tharoor |first2=Maryam |last2=Maruf |name-list-style=and |date=9 March 2016 |title=Museum of Lost Objects: The Genie of Nimrud |work=[[BBC News]] |via=www.bbc.com |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35755273}}

I even preserved the name-list-style used in the wrongly formed citation; I strongly recommend that if you have any doubts about the correct formatting that you consult the still-live referenced web page that I drew from: The Genie of Nimrud.

With all of the other changes being merely relatively trivial text formatting: I converted the blank text to paired-line verse (the style used in the Gilgamesh epic). All of the original text remains, just in a different layout.

Your injudicious action was wrong and your justification of your action was false.

If you wish to discuss it further, you can leave a message at the talk page for user:astro-Tom-ical. In the meantime, I'm restoring the edit, and stomping off in a huff. 71.94.235.196 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

71.94.235.196 You need to specify which article you are talking about and there are many way to add the citation in Wikipedia. You edit as a IP editor yet you wanted the discussion in another user talk page that seems not making sense. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

New pages patrol school

Hi Cassiopeia! I'm wanting to enroll in the new pages patrol school, and I see you have a student slot open. Is that still the case? I'd be eager to learn from you! Thanks. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude Good day. Thank you for interested in joining NPPS. NPPS is a comprehensive program consists of 10 assignment and 1 final exam. There is no time limit to complete the program and every participant works on the assignments on their own pace. Many participants abandoned the program due to they didn't anticipate the amount of time needed to read the material/links/guidelines and working on the assignment even they had been informed prior their joining of the program. So if you still want to join the program then let me know. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 21:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Sound great, I'm more than willing to commit to the time needed to complete the program. When can I get started? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
FormalDude I have set up the program for you. Please read the "reading material/links/guidelines" and the "communication section" at the bottom of the assignment prior answering the questions. Welcome to NPPS. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 23:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get started. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 00:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've completed the assignment, it is ready for your review. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
FormalDude When you have complete the assignment, pls inform me on the program page on the communication section at the bottom of the assignment. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed you borrowed the talk button from my signature, looks good! Glad to see someone liked it. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
FormalDude I thought the padded blue looked good good next to the orange text. So I borrowed it :). Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi Cassiopeia, I saw that you have two trainee positions open, and was hoping that maybe you would be willing to train me in CVUA. Please let me know. Thanks! Sandydaren (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert Problem

Hello Cassiopeia, You have seem to reverted my edit on List of fastest production cars by acceleration, saying I did not provide a source, which I did in fact provide one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawson81702 (talk • contribs) 11:17, August 15, 2021 (UTC)

Dawson81702 Good day. Pls note that utube/social media and etc are considered not reliable sources. Official web site/ any sites that are assoicate with the subject are not considered independent source. You need to provide independent, reliabe sources to support your claim. Pls see the Wikipedia basic guidelines on your talk page where I have sent it to you. Stay safe and best. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Cassiopeia talk 01:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Cassiopeia Hello. Most to some of the sources on the List of fastest production cars by acceleration page are cited to youtube videos, as not every "Thing" can possibly have a news letter on it; and by your logic the rest of them must be deleted aswell. These video "records" are a necessity for Automobile racing and proving it is legit in all sorts. I hope you understand, Thank you. Dawson81702 (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Dawson81702 It is not by my logic but it is the Wikpedia core policy for verifibility. Not realiable or not independent sourced content can be removed from Wikipedia pages. It the editor who changed/added the info need to provide independent, reliable source - see WP:BURDEN, and also see veribility, and reliable source. Lastly pls do not but back the the info again. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Steve Earle Ghosts of West Virginia

You removed an edit because you thought there was no reference, but the information is included in the reference already cited. I was simply including more already referenced material.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.185.55 (talk) 11:27, August 15, 2021 (UTC)

184.57.185.55 Good day. T This is your edit and no source was provided. If the source in the existing article has mentioned about the content you have added in, you need to provide which source in the edit summary so we may check. If the source is not in the existing article, then you need to add it in. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me you are more interested in removing content than providing good content. I just indicated it is in that source. You can check it now and it will take the same time as if you checked it then. I understand the need to remove vandalism, but there was clearly nothing malicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.185.55 (talk) 12:36, August 15, 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 I understand the act might not be malicious and act in good will; however, content without the support of indepedent, reliable source can NOT be considered good content as we have no way to understand nature for we could not verify as variability is the core policy of Wikipedia. Not reliable or not independent sourced content can be removed from Wikipedia pages. It the editor who changed/added the info need to provide independent, reliable source - see WP:BURDEN, and also see veribility, and reliable source. Lastly pls do not but back the the info again. Although adding unsourced content is not a vandalism act, but continue to edit in such fashion will lead up to a block from editing. I have provided you a few Wikipedia guidelines, kindly have a read. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Cassiopeia talk 02:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
reference WAS and STILL IS present!!! I explained that and you removed a second time. THere is no "unsourced content."184.57.185.55 (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 As indicate to you, you need to provide edit summary to indicate which source (your 1st and 2nd edit), so it would be verity for no one can take your word for it as we are all anonymously editor. I just checked on your third (last edit you have since added the source and I thank you for that for commuting to WP:BURDEN. Stay safe and best. Again Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Cassiopeia talk 02:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55I DID provide a summary the second time, but again, you are more interested in your powers than in actually investigating and ignored that. And please don't thank me if it is not sincere. 184.57.185.55 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 You did provide an edit summary but you dint indicate which # of reference and the full URL, for it has a lot of reference there and you can expect editor to check each one. As a counter vandalism editor and trainer, it is my work for Wikipedia to educate editor to adhered to Wikipedia guidelines, No one in Wikipedia have any actual power, we just all are anonymous volunteers. We edit Wikipedia for certain reasons and I am here to give back what Wikipedia and the society Where Wikipedia has provided me with all the free knowledge I have received for the last 20 years for I believe, knowedlge should be shared. Thank you for signing your last post. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk
There was one reference at the end of the sentence, with the number, and I included the actual name of the reference (American Songwriter) in my summary. It was not multiple references. On another note, the idea there is no inequality here is laughable, and you are certainly not treating me as an equal with anything valuable to contribute.184.57.185.55 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 I know you did add American songwriter, but as I mentioned before to provide the ref # or URL for we cant expect other editor to look through all the reference to see which one you talking about then still have to verify the info from the source. I treat everyone the same. Have a Look and read at my talk page, you are not the only come to me about unsourced content. (Btw, if you care to know, do add additional " : " *(colon) from the previous edit for one right indentation and to separate the message thread for this is the communication protocol in talk pages. Stay safe, chill and Best. Cassiopeia talk 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The reference number is right there, at the end of the sentence I added. And yes, I do see you have several complaints that you move too quickly to remove other people's work. You just might be wrong sometimes. Finally, I don't like the indentation. It makes things difficult to read.184.57.185.55 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 Everyone made mistakes so do I. I have informed you about the ref number prior. Issue is solved and I dont think more discussion is needed. Stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 03:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The reference number was NOT missing. Perhaps you might admit that and admit you were too hasty. There is no difference between the page now and when I made the initial change, except that I doubled the reference, which is poor academic writing.184.57.185.55 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 I dont think you understood me or perhaps I didnt explained myself well. It is not about missing ref nor I asked you to add in the ref if the ref already in the article but it is about providing ref # in the bottom of the ref section so we may verify. There are many refs and if you provide the ref# that would be best, as you can not expect we go through each ref to see if that is the one you are talking about for some article would have hundred of refs in the article. I appreciate your contribution, all I was asking was which ref is the one you input is from - that is all. We have discuss much and again, there is no point to further this discussion as I have many other work to do in Wikipedia. I wish you a good day, well should be good night as I think you are in Ohio, US. Stay safe wherever you are. Cassiopeia talk 03:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I misunderstand. The reference number was 1, and that was included at the end of my edit. The other references are irrelevant. 184.57.185.55 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
184.57.185.55 that was I was asking for but you didnt provide. Cassiopeia talk 04:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it was there. You chose to ignore it and created more work without any actual improvement.184.57.185.55 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


184.57.185.55 this is your first edit and this is your second edit No ref # - that was I was asking for but you didnt provide instead stating American songwriter, which meant I have to go through everyone to check which one you are talking about. Put yourself in my shoes, if you mark/check a page, wont it be the norm to check the ref where by the submitter provide the page number, book/article title, year and publisher as the basic info. All you have to do is to tell us what is the ref number - that it was. I will not reply your message after this, as I have explained many times and the issues is solved. Cassiopeia <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2p
No, you do not have to go through them all. You just need to look at the reference that is at the end of the paragraph, which by any standard for citing references is the source for the information. That is reference 1, as is clear on the page. You are the one wasting your own time here. 184.57.185.55 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Read my message again, that is was I was asking - the ref# and not expecting we to go throught each and every ref to find which one is American songwriter. Cassiopeia talk 20:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Read my message again. You did not have to go through any references at any time. Look at your own screenshot. It is right there in the screenshot you posted, at the end of the edit for all three times I posted the info. The ultimate result was no different from my initial edit, except the reference is there twice. I don't know why you cannot understand this.184.57.185.55 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I have said all I have said. Would not reply or discuss further. Cassiopeia talk 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You are the one who revived the conversation, and refuse to admit you might be wrong.184.57.185.55 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Take a break pal. Even if you're right, nobody much cares. And, for the record, you're clearly not right. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Rory MacDonald and Fight Matrix rankings

Don't want to get the AfD off track. I appreciate that Fight Matrix has an objective system, but at some point it seems like winning fights ought to be part of the equation. Not questioning his notability, just the fact that he remained so highly ranked prior to the Cooper fight. Papaursa (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Papaursa Do you meant the notability of the fighters need to be considered if they have won some fights against much top ranked fighters to be part of the equation? I agree, Sherdog /FM do have some questionable rankings at times. Cassiopeia talk 02:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
All rankings have some dubious results occasionally. I do believe that current rankings should be based on recent results, not results from 5-7 years ago. Those results should have been the dominant factor at the time, not years later. Of course, that's just my opinion and that's why sports discussions often produce no definitive answers. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Papaursa I understand what you meant yet it is hard to determine dominant factor in the guidelines and a win/lost does not illustrate how close a fight was and it would be like what you have said - no definitive answers in discussion. Stay safe Papaursa and best. Cassiopeia talk 04:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #481

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Cut save-time for edits in half (phab:T288639)
    • Mismatch Finder: We are making good progress on the tool. We made it possible to retrieve mismatches that are in the store part of the tool via an API.
    • Regular expressions in constraints are now no longer checked via the Query Service. The checks have been completely moved over to a dedicated service for regular expression checking. (phab:T204031)
    • Edits made via the user interface (as opposed to with tools, bots, etc.) are now tagged as such to make them easier to filter (example - edits made to labels, descriptions and aliases on mobile are still missing but will follow soon)
    • Working on allowing to restrict constraints to certain entity types (phab:T269724)

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

Tech News: 2021-33

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

Recent changes

  • You can add language links in the sidebar in the new Vector skin again. You do this by connecting the page to a Wikidata item. The new Vector skin has moved the language links but the new language selector cannot add language links yet. [8]

Problems

  • There was a problem on wikis which use the Translate extension. Translations were not updated or were replaced with the English text. The problems have been fixed. [9][10][11]

Changes later this week

  • A revision tag will soon be added to edits that add links to disambiguation pages. This is because these links are usually added by accident. The tag will allow editors to easily find the broken links and fix them. If your wiki does not like this feature, it can be hidden. [12]
  • Would you like to help improve the information about tools? Would you like to attend or help organize a small virtual meetup for your community to discuss the list of tools? Please get in touch on the Toolhub Quality Signal Sessions talk page. We are also looking for feedback from tool maintainers on some specific questions.
  • In the past, edits to any page in your user talk space ignored your mute list, e.g. sub-pages. Starting this week, this is only true for edits to your talk page. [13]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 August. It will be on all wikis from 19 August (calendar).

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

19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassiopeia/Archive_66&oldid=1146326864"