User talk:Darren-M/Archives/2021/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Darren-M. 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. |
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tom Brady on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi Darren-M. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Sticks and stones
I see you blocked an editor for one week making rude remarks. I'm intrigued and wonder if his insults might have been funny but they were deleted entirely from the edit history so I can't see them at all. Even so I'm not bothered about the name calling, but I am concerned about how User:Owennoreen reacted aggressively to what I thought was fair criticism of his editing[1] (with hindsight, maybe I could have worded it more gently) and went and repeated exactly the same misguided edit[2].
Is there an admin noticeboard somewhere recording that you blocked him? I want to make a note of it so I can refer back to it if necessary. I pessimistically expect he will come back and make the same edits (but possibly with less swearing) when he returns. His name calling doesn't bother me near as much as his poorly phrased messing with film articles. (Please reply here, I'll check back later.) -- 109.78.199.136 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- 109.78.199.136 I gave the editor a warning but the block and the deletion of the personal attacks was carried out by Barkeep49 - I'm not an admin. :) You can view blocks (including expired blocks) here. Best, Darren-M talk 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. -- 109.78.199.136 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
Hi Darren-M, I do think you made a mistake in removing my additions to [Vancouver School of Arts and Academics]. Although I did not provide a source, I am a student at the school and am trying to fill out our school wiki page so it is as informative as possible. How would I go about sourcing something that I know is true? Hiyallhowryou2 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hiyallhowryou2, Thanks for your contributions. We need all contributions to be able to be independently verified by somebody, so we can't use 'own knowledge'. So e.g. you'd need to try to find a news article that talked about Royal Durst donating money to the school. Take a look at this guide for how to use references. Best, Darren-M talk 12:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Accidentally marked as vandalism
Hi, sorry, I accidentally reverted a change you made to Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, marking it as vandalism. I meant to revert some other changes that had been made previously. Gbear605 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gbear605, Not to worry - vandalism was the worst I've ever seen last night, so not surprised mistakes happened! Best, Darren-M talk 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
RD1 request
I see that you requested an RD1 at: Adolf Eduard Herstein
The reversion was clearly proper as it was not referenced, but we don't typically do an RD1 unless we have affirmative evidence that it is a copyright violation. I did a very cursory search and didn't find the source of the material. I can't justify RD1 without seeing such a source. Can you check to see if you can find one if not I'm going to except the reversion is correct but declined the RD1.
Please let me know if you think I am incorrect on the process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, Hiya. I wasn't able to dig it up I'm afraid hence it not being listed in the revdel request. If RD1 isn't necessary on that basis, that's fine. Best, Darren-M talk 18:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: changes removed by Darren-M on Pebbles Box page, Latest revision as of 15:52, 22 January 2021
Hi, you notified me that my changes were removed because I "didn't provide a source"—is there a recommended way to provide a source, when the evidence is not in a written article online but in the recording itself? When describing the difference in the contents of a track on a vinyl LP to the track on the CD release, I would assume that no citation is needed, because the albums/formats mentioned in my comment are themselves the primary source. Is there a way for you put back the comments you removed, with the understanding that the recordings in question are the source of the information? I'm unaware of a citation method for this (and the rest of that Wiki page similarly makes comments based on the contents of certain recordings, with no citations). Best, Jeffrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.2.73 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there - take a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Sound_recordings for how to cite audio recordings themselves. Best, Darren-M talk 20:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @98.116.2.73: - see my response above. Darren-M talk 20:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Edit to Puberty Blockers.
Hello. I recently made an edit to the page for puberty blockers which you immediately reverted based on "not providing a citation". The edit was the inclusion of an incredibly general clarification on the controversy surrounding the usage of puberty blockers on minors which in my view does not in of itself require a citation. I assume based on the speed at which you reversed this edit it was done automatically. If not, would you mind explaining your reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.215.46 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- @84.70.215.46: Hi there. No, it wasn't automatic. I reverted the edit as every claim in an article should be supported by a citation. I suspect it shouldn't be difficult to find a citation to support the claim given the substantial recent media coverage of cases around this. Best, Darren-M talk 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Editing news 2021 #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
- The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
- It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.
Research notes:
- As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
- There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[3]
- The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[4] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[5] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.
New discussion tool
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[6] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
Next: Notifications
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.