User talk:Nthep/Archive 64
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nthep. 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. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Wikidata weekly summary #604
Extended content
|
---|
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
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.
|
Books & Bytes – Issue 59
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
- Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
- Tech tip: Library access methods
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2023
The WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter |
The December 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available. |
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
19:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
[Wikidata] Weekly Summary #605
Extended content
|
---|
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Feel free to suggest next week's Showcase Item and Lexeme!
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.
|
Microwave oven copyvio revdel
Just an fyi, User:76.139.59.27 did the same copyvio at Jack Asselstine[1]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- thanks for the heads up. Nthep (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Explanation
I'm still looking for an explanation as to why redirect talk pages can't be used to talk on or add projects (the templates even recognise class=redirect so it's standardised). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATybee_Bomb&diff=1188482077&oldid=1188473012 boils down to "don't do it because don't do it." Can you explain why? 92.30.149.54 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- If it had any meaningful history e.g. a move discussion then it's separate existence would be justifiable, but as it's had none and has never been anything but a redirect, there's no apparent reason for it to exist separately (and I do include a project classification in that). Nthep (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Which policy says that? 92.30.149.54 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- None that I'm aware of. I just don't see the need for this redirect to have an unredirected talk page when it's been a redirected talk page since 2011 without any issues. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- So what part of that was I supposed to understand when you deleted it twice with no answer? I came here trying to understand what I'd done that was so wrong, am I understanding right that the only thing I did wrong was do something you personally don't like? So you deleted it like vandalism? 92.30.149.54 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I never said it was vandalism. Yes I do disagree with you but so far I've not heard you give any justification for your changing the status quo after 12 years. So what's your case for the change? Nthep (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I said you deleted it like vandalism: undid with no reasoning given. My case for the change is so redirects aren't 'lost track of' by projects. So they end up in lists if nominated for discussion etc. I also think the talk page is for discussing the content, in this case a redirect. I still don't understand why I did something so bad it was deleted with no reason, that's really what I'm looking for, you didn't say "I think it's better like this", you just said "Undid" like it was obviously wrong and I had done something bad. The only page I found when I did some searches is Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects but it only deals with the 'main' redirect page and is silent about their talks. 92.30.149.54 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- You could have put a rationale in the original edit summary, that would have avoided any look of drive-by editing. Do I agree with your rationale, no, but it's enough of a reason of an area with no apparent policy for me to say ok, my opinion is different but it's a justified edit. Nthep (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I said you deleted it like vandalism: undid with no reasoning given. My case for the change is so redirects aren't 'lost track of' by projects. So they end up in lists if nominated for discussion etc. I also think the talk page is for discussing the content, in this case a redirect. I still don't understand why I did something so bad it was deleted with no reason, that's really what I'm looking for, you didn't say "I think it's better like this", you just said "Undid" like it was obviously wrong and I had done something bad. The only page I found when I did some searches is Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects but it only deals with the 'main' redirect page and is silent about their talks. 92.30.149.54 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I never said it was vandalism. Yes I do disagree with you but so far I've not heard you give any justification for your changing the status quo after 12 years. So what's your case for the change? Nthep (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- So what part of that was I supposed to understand when you deleted it twice with no answer? I came here trying to understand what I'd done that was so wrong, am I understanding right that the only thing I did wrong was do something you personally don't like? So you deleted it like vandalism? 92.30.149.54 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- None that I'm aware of. I just don't see the need for this redirect to have an unredirected talk page when it's been a redirected talk page since 2011 without any issues. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Which policy says that? 92.30.149.54 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
- Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
- 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.
Thank you
Hi Nthep, thank you for cleaning up copyright violations! S0091 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- thanks, but bigger thanks to you and others for spotting them in the first place. Nthep (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #606
Extended content
|
---|
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
(QLEver has already featured in Tool of the Week but we wanted to showcase it again after experiencing it at DMD '23)
Anything to add? Please share! :)
|
Pilipino
Filipino 119.94.167.189 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- what are you referring to? Nthep (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Astonished
I've just woken up from my afternoon siesta. Did you even look at the discussion on the talk page of Refaat Alareer, from which it is clear that no copyright violation is involved? Even more astonished that you have given no explanation there. Please reconsider. --NSH001 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- yes I did and and I've responded at the talk page. Nthep (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then you should have first offered your thoughts there, and invited further discussion, before revdelling it. That is why I said "Let's wait for a copyright expert to appear." The whole point is that Alareer wanted his work to be distributed as widely as possible. This is obvious to anyone who has been following Alareer's work. It's ridiculous that it should be prevented from publication by a legal technicality, when in reality it has already been released. This is why we have WP:IAR to prevent absurdities such as this. If the worst comes to the worst, I suppose I could email Helena Cobban, who runs the Just World Books publication house. I've been following her work for decades (she is a Quaker like me) and I have no doubt that she would provide a formal release if asked. But doing so would simply make Wikipedia look silly. WP:IAR again. --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I said on the talk page, show where this desire for his work to be shared as widely as possible is. What's obvious to you and what is a legal formality are not necessarily the same. I've spent time trying to find anything that is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy WMF licensing conditions and I can't find any. You've got an emotional attachment to this subject and you desperately want to include this poem. I accept that. There are times when I get frustrated that copyright and licensing stops me adding material to Wikipedia that I'd love to include but IAR isn't a panacea to go and ignore fundamentals on copyright, just because we want to, no matter how worthy you think the cause is. Nthep (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then you should have first offered your thoughts there, and invited further discussion, before revdelling it. That is why I said "Let's wait for a copyright expert to appear." The whole point is that Alareer wanted his work to be distributed as widely as possible. This is obvious to anyone who has been following Alareer's work. It's ridiculous that it should be prevented from publication by a legal technicality, when in reality it has already been released. This is why we have WP:IAR to prevent absurdities such as this. If the worst comes to the worst, I suppose I could email Helena Cobban, who runs the Just World Books publication house. I've been following her work for decades (she is a Quaker like me) and I have no doubt that she would provide a formal release if asked. But doing so would simply make Wikipedia look silly. WP:IAR again. --NSH001 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)