Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 215

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 210←Archive 213Archive 214Archive 215Archive 216Archive 217Archive 218

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media Methodology Update

JzG 

In a prior discussion of Ad Fontes Media you indicated that it was a "self-published", "doesn't have a peer-reviewed methodology", and it "lags events".  Hence it was not RS.  I just added the following updated description of their methodology to their Wikipedia article:

As of 2021:

The Ad Fontes methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, politically right-leaning, and politically centrist analysts, whose scores along each dimension are averaged (after any notable score discrepancies are discussed and scores adjusted if the outlier is convinced) (Otero, 2021).

Each analyst completes a political identity assessment; all analysts hold at least a bachelor’s degree—and most hold a graduate degree—with one-third holding or in the process of obtaining a doctoral degree (Otero, 2021).

Analysts are selected by a panel of application reviewers consulting a rubric of candidate qualifications—including education, political/civic engagement, familiarity with news sources and United States government systems, reading comprehension and analytical skills, among others (Otero, 2021).

Once hired, analysts complete a minimum of 20 training hours to learn the content analysis procedure before contributing ratings to the data set (Otero, 2021).[1]

According to Natasha Strydhorst of the College of Media & Communication, Texas Tech University, the ratings system provides "a viable operationalization of audiences' media selections". However, "It does not (and cannot) measure objective media bias and reliability, but it also shares this limitation with other available measures of the phenomena."[1]

Based on this methodology, would you still consider Ad Fontes to be self-published, doesn't have a peer-reviewed methodology, and lags events?

  1. ^ a b Strydhorst, Natasha; Morales-Riech, Javier; Landrum, Asheley R (October 10, 2023). "Exploring partisans' biased and unreliable media consumption and their misinformed health-related beliefs" (PDF). Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, Volume 4, Issue 5. Retrieved December 1, 2023.

Nowa (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I would not self-source characterisations of bias from Ad Fontes. And I say that as a subscriber: I find it a useful guide, but until we see large numbers of secondary sources quoting it, it's not really usable here. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@JzG, Thanks for the feedback. I see what you mean by the self sourcing. I wasn't quite sure how to handle it since the quote is from a peer reviewed article, but the original citation is back to Ad Fontes own publication.
When you say "large numbers of secondary sources", how large is large? I've seen several peer reviewed articles where they use Ad Fontes with certain caveats. Nowa (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Anna Paulina Luna

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anna Paulina Luna, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Tickell

I have no idea why I created that redirect, beyond the fact that it was useful in that there was some info in the list. I seem to have done so in the midst of a bunch of edits to St Cecilia's Abbey, Ryde and St Cecilia's Abbey dab page, but can't see the connection. Anyway, always good to see an article being written, and apologies for stealing your priority as the article creator! I've added him to the surname list at Tickell. Happy Editing! PamD 23:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

No apology necessary! I knew Ken slightly (and Peter Collins, Noel Mander, Peter Hurford and Ralph Downes). I used to help at the St. Albans International Organ Festival). Ken was a lovely man. It took me an age to find sources but I subscribed to Choir & Organ to get access to some. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

Hello JzG,

I'll copy this here because finding 4.1 is about Leyo's block threat against you.

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Leyo and KoA are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Leyo is admonished for battleground behavior, personal attacks, and use of administrator tools while INVOLVED. Leyo is INVOLVED in the topic area of genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. Future instances of this kind of conduct may result in sanction, including removal of adminship, without warning, especially if it is INVOLVED tool use.
  • KoA is warned for edit warring and is reminded to engage in good faith when resolving their disputes.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been following it. Depressing stuff. I'm a grumpy bugger too, I try to take breaks to regain my sanity. Maybe Leyo should try it. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
😕 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the Daily Express banned / deprecated as a source?

I was trying to find out whether Wikipedia has ever directly banned or deprecated the use of the Daily Express (like it had for the Daily Mail). And indeed, we have a link WP:DAILYEXPRESS that states "The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable.", which sounds about right. But I can't see an RfC where it's actually been specifically outlawed. As one of our more vocal editors against citing the Mail, do you have any idea how this decision at WP:RSP came about?

(note, this isn't for any specific article, rather someone else somewhere on the internet asked "Is the Daily Express reliable" and I was hoping I could answer with "no - Wikipedia has banned it as a source") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Paula Vennells

Please, why have you deleted the reference and link to the petition numbers on Paula_Vennells? Aren't primary sources the best ones? No way is it a solicitation to cast a vote, nor can one do so from the periodic archival pages. Please explain else I will revert your deletion which I believe contradicts wiki policy. Thank you. :-) Albin-Counter (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can't keep on waiting for your response in a very fast-changing scenario, so reluctantly reverted. Kindly engage before deleting the like in future. There are many other related updates too; you will find them on the wikipage. I can cite other policies too should you continue to hold that you are correct. Albin-Counter (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Albin-Counter, you are mistaken - primary sources are generally avoided, since we are writing an encyclopedia. This is discussed in greater or lesser detail in various locations, but a good starting point is WP:RSPRIMARY. If the information concerns the biography of a living person, WP:BLPPRIMARY is also worth looking at. Girth Summit (blether) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The matter is resolved because the petition succeeded and the physical emblem of the honour (CBE) has been returned. Hence all that remains is the press report and archival (non-live) link. Thanks. Albin-Counter (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
We don't use priomary sources, and we especially don't use petitions as priomary sources for their existence, for reasons which should be fairly obvious when you consider the purpose of petitions. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; I get you. Here, what was provided were a link to a web-archive of the petition page, not the page itself. No votes could be cast on it. While it is possible to find what the original "live" page was from the archive, it is also linked to in the press report pages, and so providing them allows navigation to the petition page with a single click. Albin-Counter (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
We have a third-party source. That's sufficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request for Okkio

User talk:Okkio has an unblock request for a block you made just over 15 (!!!) years ago. --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this was due to a whitewashing edit on Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), likely due to a glut of “completely new” users doing the same. Seems weird to request unblock, but I have no objection. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_215&oldid=1199024724"