Jump to content

User talk:QEDK/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Congratulations

(insert well-past-its-sell-by-date gag about T shirts here)

It might appear a tad bit too early but I’m confident your RFA would be successful so in advance I want to be the first to tell you congratulations. RFA’s these days are anything but easy so congratulations once more 🍾🍾🍾 Celestina007 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. It's not over yet until it's over so there's that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But either way, your vote of confidence means a lot to me as an editor. Happy days! And if you really want to thank anyone, it definitely has to be MelanieN and NinjaRobotPirate --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah! Okay. MelanieN and NinjaRobotPirate thank you both for supporting & solidly standing by QEDK.Celestina007 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm on solid ground in saying you will be in possession of a mop and bucket by lunchtime. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • While it's not closed up yet, I'm going to assume you'll avoid a 20% drop in support in negative time! Welcome to the mop corps! I'm always happy to share my wide array of making mistakes, if you're looking for cautionary tales for new admins ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


<rambling man>*tap* *tap* HELLO IS THIS THING ON ANY CRATS THERE </rambling man> Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That should work! --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems to have worked. Congratulations! Maxim(talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep - Congratulations. Now the fun starts! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Here's some admin bling you can use if you want:
You can add this to the top of your user page or talk page or both: {{Administrator topicon}}
Here’s a userbox you can use if you want: {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} -- MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a lot of topicons lost ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but hey, all worth it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Take the sacred mop and with it rinse the Wiki of its scum and villany! Bucket sold seperately CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓

request extended confirmed

Kobe Bryant. TMZ reported that he died, so it's getting edit warred over Enigmamsg 19:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Couldn't respond to this earlier due to the server outage (seems ok for now!) It looks like constructive editing for now due to the semi in place, so pre-emptive ECP is not necessary (per ArbCom directive). If it gets worse, feel free to request protection here or WP:RFPP. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The site was running very slow for me yesterday but I was able to continue accessing pages, just at dial-up speed. Enigmamsg 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems better now, but still sporadically getting 503s. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Popcorn Temp Semi-protection

Hi QEDK, I wanted to follow-up and get your rationale for such a short semi-protection status (Until Feb 6 2020) for Popcorn. From my protection request: "per WP:SILVERLOCK due to Persistent IP vandalism that seems to have increased over the last 20 days, with an even more frequent uptick in past 24-48 hours. The latest 24 hours, A few other editors and myself have reverted several IPs that are engaging in IP hopping. Evidence of IP hopping because the IPs continue adding similar vandalism but switch after a warning or two so no single IP has reached uw-vandalism4/block status. After reading through the talk page, it appears the page has been temp semi-protected multiple times, I recommend a perm semi-block or at minimum, extended temp semi protection." There seems to be other page protection requests just in the last 24 with less history of and less regular vandalism/unconstructive edit histories that are receiving page protection of 3-6 months or permanent. As I brought up in the initial request, the complexity of either IP hopping or a vandal group also adds to the rationale for lengthened semi-protection. Popcorn is a fun, lighthearted subject and it appears to routinely attract juvenile IP vandalism. It appears Popcorn has been temp page protected many times reviewing it's talk page. I wanted to get your rationale on 1) why your temp protection was so short compared to similar cases; and 2) is there a different process needed to get lengthened semi-protection status? Thanks for your time! --Bhockey10 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bhockey10: The last protection was from July-August 2019. The uptick in vandalism is only observed from 22nd of January, so I went with a one-month protection, however it is true that it has been protected several times in the past and there is a slow tricking of vandalism over the past few months. I've semi-protected it for one year given that most edits seem to be vandalism. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
RE QEDK, I appreciate your review, I know Admins get a steady stream of people wanting different things "fixed" so thanks for taking time to look at this case again. In particular, that was part of my thought because past temp protections haven't deterred vandalism waves that the article seems susceptible to, before making the request I looked back through mid-late 2019 and it has burst of vandalism (with likely IP hopping) pretty much every month. Thanks again and Happy Editing! --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I'm relatively new to the scene here (one week to be exact), might make a few misses here and there. Appreciate the note. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome! I wasn't intending to call you out for missing, I've never done a page protection so that's why I was interested in the clarification or to make sure I was in the right process for a longer one. I think the 1 year time should work and if permanent semi-protection is needed in 2021, it sets a good precedent that we tried everything to limit vandalism on that page. Thanks again for your work! Bhockey10 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious

news and images

Thank you for quality articles such as 2016 Aligarh Muslim University campus violence and 2018 Kolkata bridge collapse and , for patrol of new pages, for updating news, for "I can say with absolute certainty, I will not be the perfect administrator", for excessively beautiful images on your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2336 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks a lot, Gerda, this means a lot to me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification Request

QEDK, would you be so kind as to explain the following WP:ECP applications. The rationale seems vague "Arbitration enforcement" but fails to mention which case it applies to. Likewise, it doesn't appear they've been logged as required at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log

Thanks for the clarification in advance! Buffs (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buffs: Thanks for the heads-up, I felt as though I was missing something out, the logging it was indeed. I have done so now. As for the protections themselves, they fall under WP:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions, which has a general sanctions remedy prohibiting non-ECP editing completely over the topic area and can be enforced with protection at any time, in that respect. Since the articles in question had atleast one edit from a non-ECP editor recently and another editor disputing it, it only made sense to enforce the GS. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
No prob. If you write that in the description, it'll show up at WP:AN and reduce questions both there and within the logs of WP:ECP actions. Congrats on the adminship btw. Buffs (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I used the default AE preset in Twinkle, I think I realized it would be better to add WP:ARBPIA4 to the summary and use the batch protect feature after I was done with the entire batch. Could've saved a lot of time instead of individually protecting the pages, for next time welp. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks again. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
*tips his hat* Buffs (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

uw-pblock

Am I recollecting correctly — are you the template's author. El_C 15:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I am. How can I help? --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I noticed today that when I add the time= parameter, the template now reads You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week [sic.] certain areas of the encyclopedia [etc.] The word from is missing whenever that is submitted as such (example). I'd try to fix it, but it would probably take you a tenth the time to do it... Thanks in advance! El_C 15:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That was actually done to prevent using two "from"s in the sentence, I'm no English whiz and the new sentence reads better, so  Done (maybe a comma could suffice Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0)). Hope that helps! --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! El_C 15:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Berenson

Hi QEDK,

Thanks for instituting a 1-week protection on Alex Berenson a week ago. Unfortunately, things have started to heat up again just as the protection expired. There is one editor in particular that has made a significant effort to push their narrative about a tangential topic onto a BLP despite my having explained to them that other articles are more appropriate. Just now, a new account with no previous contributions re-added the exact content that had been previously removed by that original editor. I was wondering if you could take a quick look again and see if there was anything you thought was appropriate to remedy the situation.

Thanks! Matt18224 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-ed it for a month and added a (friendly) editnotice + DS notice. Given that it is a DS area, for further disruption, I will ECP it and institute 1RR, no worries. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Query about AfD closure

Hi QEDK, I'm not coming here to moan, just wondered if you'd be willing to talk me through your reasoning. You relisted this deletion discussion earlier today; per WP:NOQUORUM, If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD (emphasis in the original). There were no keep votes, nobody has touched the article since I nominated it for deletion, and there was another delete vote with what seems to be to be a reasonable delete argument. The article hasn't had a PROD declined in the past so far as I can see; is there a reason why you went for a relist rather than a soft delete? Seriously, no passive-aggression intended, just wanted to explore your thinking. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer consensus to making administrative calls, while a NOQUORUM call would be perfectly within policy, I prefer to make more conservating closes, particularly owing to the criticism I received in my RfA regarding my deletion calls, and would much rather see a good amount of consensus. There's really no loss if this sticks around for another 7 days but in that time, someone could also choose to draftify this. I was also under the idea that NOQUORUM is an alternative to relisting, I see that is not true. Feel free to revert me on this. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to revert you - as the nominator, I think that would be going a bit far! For future reference though, my understanding is that there is a fairly strong consensus that a NOQUORUM soft delete is the correct outcome when there are no keep votes after a week (I can dig out diffs to a few discussions about this in the last year or so if you're interested) - but as you say, no harm done, so no worries. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello QEDK,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, QEDK. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Replied. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question

;-) - Just so you'll know why I didn't vote...it had nothing to do with your answers or candidacy. As I recall, it was my intention to support you because of your excellent work at SPI, (an area that has always fascinated me). Your comment aroused my curiosity so I went back into my contribs and saw that on the days following my question to you, my time online was minimal so chalk it off to my being remiss and/or distracted. Keep up the good work!! Atsme Talk 📧 11:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: That's good to know, and no worries, glad to know you'd have supported. It's the thought that counts afterall. :) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Block

When it turns out im right about the many saints casting, will you be apologising to me and removing my block? SpoonyRumble (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@SpoonyRumble: I am afraid but you are not blocked since you can edit this page (and I checked your block logs). Are you sure you do not have an alternate account or attempted to edit logged out from a blocked IP? --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I usually use Fandom over wiki, I thought the blocks may work a bit differently here. I saw some about an expiry time and on fandom that means a block. My bad. You locked the page?SpoonyRumble (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@SpoonyRumble: I think I figured it out, you must be talking about The Many Saints of Newark. The page is protected due to persistent vandalism, you can propose your changes on the talk page of the article (you will get a template when you attempt to edit the article). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
But it was not vandalisms as the info i added is correct, so why do you keep reverting my edits anc lock the page? If anything, removing correct content from pages is vandalism, so YOU are the vandal here SpoonyRumble (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@SpoonyRumble: I'm afraid but that's not how it works. The English Wikipedia requires that information you add is reliably sourced, please read WP:Verifiability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, i used a source, imdb. AKA the internet movie data base. I even added the link in thd dit summary. So i will ask you AGAIN,why are you vandalisng my edits and locking the page??SpoonyRumble (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be reporting you too wiki staff for locking down a page for no reason and calling me a vandal. Goodbye. SpoonyRumble (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

SpoonyRumble IMDb is crowdsourced and not considered a reliable source.--valereee (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure it was only accidenatally that SpoonyRumble logged out to revert on that page; still, better note make a habit of it, eh  :) ——SN54129 17:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
yeah, but why would anyone make it up? Its actually more likely that the small time actors added it themselfes to help find future work, are the actors themself reliablee? I assure you im 100 percent right on this and i will be coming back for an aplogy when the truth is out. You all need to stop being robots.SpoonyRumble (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@SpoonyRumble: It is not an option, nor is it optional. Listen to what valeree has said above, and if you want to add the content, find a WP:Reliable source for the same. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Hello, about 5 days ago you reposted an AfD discussion I began on this article. No one has voted still besides that one though. Can you just go ahead and delete it? I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't meet requirements. I guess you might be considered an involved admin, I don't know... Thanks either way! Puddleglum 2.0 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Soft-deleted, it was the wrong call, read my explanation in the above threads. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Puddleglum 2.0 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

note re comments

thanks so much for replying to the section on ANI regarding my edits. it is good to see an admin responding there. I would be willing to take any steps that you might suggest. is there any way to reach some kind of understanding, and bring this proceeding to some kind of positive resolution? I would greatly appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Slow down on the proposal train. I understand you are interested to improve the Wikipedia but railroading through projectspace and user talk pages will have the opposite effect. That's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
can you please view that section again at ANI? I worked on a draft today in my own user space, and contacted around three people who had spoken with me about this idea. I can show you their comments. I would like to try to bring this topic to some positive resolution, if that's possible. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: I can understand that you're trying to form a collaborative workspace, unfortunately that cannot happen if the very people who have to collaborate are irritated by the proposal ideas. What you need to do here is take a break and work on some articles and rehash this in one or two months with editors who are willing to listen to you. Do not push this further than it needs to go. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
ok I agree with you. Thanks. —Sm8900 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

by the way, one small note, the last edits were not to a collaborative workspace. I was asked to just focus on the existing resources here, which is what i did. if you look at the talk page, another user had asked me to think about simply using community bulletin board or community portal, which is what I was doing. so I felt that i was complying with any requests that were made to me on this. that is my only goal. I am very pleased to be able to discuss this with you and to make I sure I respond to any points of importance. with that said, I agree there's no need to push any major edits further right now. I really appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. thanks so much for your help above. just curious, what is the avergae or usual timeframe between opening of an item at ANI and its closure? whatever the overall timeframe is fine, just wanted to ask. I really appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: There isn't any. It's usually very random, simple issues might take a few hours as one admin can deal with them with complex issues taking weeks (or never). What Nick said at the thread is very apt and that's all you should need to hear for now really. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Jokes

What an absolute joke you are. Banning me for no reason. Get a life and leave this project to real people with a life. If I met you in real life I'd pour a glass of water over your head you absolute disgrace. YOU are the kind of reason that Wikipedia gets a bad name. You sad little man, I hope you are happy when Wikipedia crashes and burns due to your sad, fascist actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2215:1E00:718A:851C:2E26:741A (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request moved

Hey there, thanks for moving this discussion to the right place. A question: should WP:SO#How does it work? be changed to reflect that AN is typically the place to go? That's where I was looking when I dropped that notice. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I can change it but I doubt there's much of a point to it. Historically, unblock appeals are brought to AN but that might be more of a pratical measure than actual policy (a lot of places will suggest AN/ANI or simply AN). I'll go ahead and change it though, no worries. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Centralized template tweak

I appreciate you tweaking the item I added to the WP:CENT template. I was unsure how to get it looking correct in terms of style or structure. I'll try to be more mindful of that in the future.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@WaltCip: No worries! My comment was not directly intended at you althought it did implicate you indirectly, "and/or" is bad structuring but CENT is fairly informal, so editors come by and add RfCs and other editors often adjust them as they see fit, the main cruxes are conciseness (without losing information) and neutrality (with grammatical correctness is a necessity ofc). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your bot

Hello, QEDK,

Your bot mistakenly tagged Category:2015 establishments in the Netherlands Antilles for speedy deletion. It is the subject of a CfD discussion and is not subject to speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz, I was reverting all the false positives but must have missed this somehow. The bot has been updated to deal with Cfd tags. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 05:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, QEDK. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You can ignore the mail, it was a revision-deletion request, but it was for a talk page, not an article page.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: BLP still applies, so done. --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, not BLP it seems (it took me a while to understand what SPECIFICO was talking about), but RD3 applies so it's fine. --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I was going to say "you have more mail" but you've already acted on it. That was fast. I said BLP, well, because he just might still be, even if he has left the building.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)  Seriously, the BLP claim was lack of caffeine on my part. I should've been paying more attention.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: No worries, caught me at a good time tho, I would have slept early but it's movie night for me (after a long ass time). --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
If you haven't picked out a film, you could stick with today's theme. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Back from block for more of same

An IP you blocked a few days ago. Including copyright violations now, 96.54.186.128 (talk · contribs). Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and cheers! 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you help?

Since you are an admin so requesting you. It is somewhat related to the Delhi riot page. I also put this at admin nontice but noone responded, so here.

Someone wrote on the admin notice boadrd "... it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." In response to which I wrote "Selectively facts are presented and missing from the artcle which voilates nuetral point of view and creates false impression." see it here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=943354300#North_East_Delhi_riots

A person removed my comment saying that content disputes should not spill over to noticeboard, I said ok. But the "facts out on Wiki" gives impression that there is no issue with the content of the article, should also be removed, but the person disagreed.

I have discussed with the person here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Relate_to_Admin_notice_board_reverts and at the notice board here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Related_to_a_removal_of_my_comment

If my comments were removed then

"... it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." should be replaced by

"... it just shows how pissed off they are."

Please respond. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand it must be frustrating but it's been locked due to continuous disruption, which even if not your fault, has happened nonetheless. Although I am an administrator, policy (WP:INVOLVED) prohibits me from exercising my administrative tools in areas I am involved in (I have edited the article and the talk page in a non-administrative capacity). So, other than using my tools what do you want me to do? El_C is not wrong in this case, since ANI is technically not for content disputes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
First thanks you responded. I am not saying that El_C is wrong, She/he is nice and civil person. I also agreed ANI not the place. But I am being treated unequally, when my comment was removed the " ...facts out on Wiki" should also be removed as this gives an impression that no issues content of the article that its right. Specifically the replacement suggested above. thanks again. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Should I wait? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the contributor. I don't want to be cryptic, that means you don't want to say things like "..they don't want facts...", that is definitely not WP:NPOV and there's no cabal supressing facts. You are more than welcome to contribute without making ad hominem comments. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry dear, forgive my incompetence but I did not get you. How is this related? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page un-protection

Hi QEDK, Please unprotect the article talk page. People should be able to post suggestion. Vandalism and BLP Vios can be removed easily. Blocking the talk simply floods the OTRS and shifts to other places. We should keep the page related comments at one place. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El C, What is your opinion ? With so many talk page watchers , the talk page disruption is manageable IMHO, so I asked. Looks like QEDK is offline. (I also posted on WP:RFPP --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray: agreed. I have lifted the protection. QEDK, let's hold off on it until things get really bad again (like something along the lines of the insanity we saw the day before yesterday). El_C 12:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the support and shepherding that got me through the last couple of weeks. It's HUGELY appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for North East Delhi riots

On 26 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article North East Delhi riots, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Would not have been possible without your helping hand to update this.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DBigXray. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i have seen your edits about Delhi special India it looks biased user with DBigXray. can check his profile says communists then how can he send real sources to Wikipedia. There is so many news websites please check it out and insert some real sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokbhamla (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your bot, again

Hi, QEDK,

When tagging clean-up categories, like Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates from February 2020, they shouldn't be tagged CSD C1 but CSD G6 as they can be deleted immediately if they are empty once the date has passed (in this case, March 1st).

These tagged categories also should be placed in an appropriate speedy deletion category so that they show up and admins can see that they have been tagged and are ready to be deleted. If they are tagged but not placed in a suitable category, no one will know they have been tagged. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Are all monthly cleanup categories tagged with {{monthly cleanup category}}? That is the only way for my bot to determine if it's a C1 or G6 (since C1 can be determined by having 0 members and not meeting the non-criteria). --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

AE ban

Can you give a summary of why I was banned? If you were judging consensus or whatever. Not sure how AE works. Maybe you just count votes. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have appealed. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Peregrine_Fisher Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I guess I f'd up. I'm taking this page of my watchlist, so happy travels! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hate to do this to you, but never mind the never mind. Someone else was curious about the rational, and I'll admit I'm also still currious. Sorry to jerk you around like that. I hate when people do that to me. This page is back on my watchlist. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Peregrine Fisher: Per AE procedures: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or ... (emphasis mine) is needed. At the time of my closure, five uninvolved administrators had signified a willingness that topic-banning you from the area was necessary, I concurred with it and carried out the closure per the consensus, that's all. I notice that you attempted to appeal it as soon as it was placed, that's generally a bad move (I am saying this as someone who has been here for ~10 years), no appeals placed with consensus are ever repealed instantly, if it was a unilateral administrator sanction, sure, otherwise, close to impossible (noting this was per AE discussion and not an unilateral sanction on my part). Now, if you do not violate your topic ban (please note that no edits means none, not only edits to articles/discussions) for the next 6 months, your appeal will definitely be successful, if you still feel this sanction was placed in error, you can appeal at ARCA or AN, noting ofcourse it might result in stricter sanctions with longer durations of appeal (I do not intend this as a chilling effect, just experience of how it usually goes). Hope I could clarify it for you. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 06:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

redent. What's ARCA? haven't heard of that. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: See WP:ARCA. It's technically the last court of appeal (apart from AN) for enforcement blocks or sanctions, apart from filing a case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not a question of procedures. The consensus on WP:AE is not required for making any sanctions. If I understand correctly, user Peregrine Fisher has absolutely no idea why he was topic banned. Was it because he was making personal attacks on other users (I am not saying he did, this is just an example)? Or there is another reason like WP:TE? If there is a reason, I think user Peregrine Fisher needs an explanation with diffs what they did wrong. This is not clear for me as well because the only diff admins discussed in their section on WP:AE was this diff. Was that the reason for the topic ban? My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: You're mixing up unilateral discretionary sanctions vs. other discretionary sanctions. Unilateral DS needs a concrete rationale to be imposed and can be imposed upto one year, there's no such limit of sanctions imposed via consensus at AE, think of it as a normal discussion to sanction any editor except it is under the ambit of arbitration enforcement. Either way, my understanding of the consensus was that Peregrine Fisher engaged in behaviour against WP:NPOV (tendentious editing) in the topic area of R&I, which was also evidenced in their comment at JJE's RfB, which was verging on disruptive. Further noting, consensus of uninvolved administrators are taken into account at AE, which was fairly evident. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC): revised 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. In theory, the user could make an argument that you and others were not uninvolved admins because you had an argument with him on this page, and his comments precisely on this page were used as a justification of his topic ban. However, I recommended him a different course of action [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: Neither me nor any of the other administrators at the AE section had anything to do with Peregrine Fisher at JJE's RfB, I have no idea what you're talking about. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, you did comment in this discussion many times in a certain way. Peregrine Fisher was the first contributor who commented in an opposite way in this discussion. You did notice his comment and did not like it (according to your own statement above). In my opinion, that constituted involvement per WP:Uninvolved, especially when you cite his comment on this page as a reason for the sanction, but his comment is merely an expression of his opinion. Perhaps you should undo your sanction. But I can be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: The first time PF's vote came into my attention was at AE. Either way, this really has nothing to do with the fact that it was a vote at JJE's RfB but rather than the endless R&I POV-pushing that PF engaged in, even at that RfB. You should re-read WP:INVOLVED, if administrators had to stay out of sanctioning every editor they've seen around, or voted with, or commented on the same page, there would be no one left to sanction. You're misconstruing WP:INVOLVEDness as any interaction but it only applies to situations where there's a certain bias, if I had an argument regarding TE at their TP for example, I would be involved, either way, my point is I was not involved, I won't be removing the sanction (again as I've said, it was imposed per consensus). Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I would not comment more on "involved", but perhaps that user should indeed stay away of this subject. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification after coming here from Bish’s talk: all discretionary sanctions are unilateral, even if taken based on AE consensus. Other administrators may agree with it, and AE provides the opportunity for feedback, but it is still intentionally the action of one person, and no different than an AE sanction you’ve done on your own. Typically, however, sanctions that take place based on an AE request aren’t appealed there since they were already there. That’s the main difference. All discretionary sanctions, except for blocks, can be indefinite. Blocks are the only DS that have time limits. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: WP:AC/DS states Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project (emphasis mine), I'm guessing even if the second statement is true, the first would need to be upheld as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, this is an issue of grammatical parsing. and blocks of up to one year in duration is one item in a list. Of up to one year in duration is not a qualifier to every item preceding it in the list. If you take a look at WP:AELOG you’ll see indef sanctions outside of AE. It’s fairly routine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: That's why I've always wondered the same, I assumed it was a matter of practicality (indefinite bans), either way, thanks a ton. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Annual readership

Hi QEDK! I think your recent edits to {{annual readership}} may have broken something, because the page title apparently no longer displays correctly when using |target=, but it did display correctly in the Feb 17 revision prior to your last two edits (compare the "Rubber duck" example in current v. Feb 17 revision). No idea if they're actually connected or what the problem is, I just noticed this and thought I'd bring it to your attention (I don't know much about template coding). Thanks, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Well, I was trying to fix the graph, seems like I ended up removing the parameter in the process, either way, fixed! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User rights test

Just so you know, all the user rights on the right side are automatically enabled via the sysop flag. You were already a pending changes reviewer... Pending changes sucks, btw! El_C 08:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Actually, there happens to be a pretty big issue with the FlaggedRevs extension where privileged users (such as sysops) sometimes/always cannot accept/unaccept/revert PC edits. See T234743, the only workaround as of now is to have the PC right separately added. It sucks indeed! --qedk (t 心 c) 08:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I sorta suspected there was a method to your method! Yet another reason pending changes sucks... El_C 08:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Church in the Darkness Screenshot.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Church in the Darkness Screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Preventing pages from breaking

Hi,

On WP:VPT, you had wikitext displayed as <code>({{\s*(csd|speedy|cat|dab|(dis)?ambig|db|pec|possibly empty category|empty\s?cat)|with no backlinks\s*]])</code> from here. You see how you have a {{ and a ]]? This caused an issue with your {{ and/or using ]] instead of }} when I put my signature containing }}. This caused the page to break down. It wasn't mine or your fault, but in the future, if you use <code></code> to show wikitext, please use <nowikI></nowiki> to prevent such event from happening aginan. Thank you.

{{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 03:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In regards to your 3 month block of user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, said editor states they can continue to edit logged out. Judging from continuous edit warring going on at Afghan–Sikh Wars, it would appear that WorldWikiAuthorOriginal has chosen to do just that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Autoblocks only last for 24 hours, so it is possible to not login to your account and continue editing from IPs, however evading a block is not allowed by policy, hence I will extend the duration to indefinite. Thanks for bringing it up. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for extension/renewal of rollback

Hello qedk, as you said, I should feel free to ask for a permanent extension on your talk page, when you granted me rollback privileges in January (see 1), this is why I'm here now. I would very much like to continue using Huggle to fight vandalism (or rather resume doing so, as I didn't have the time recently). Or do you think it would be more appropriate to re-request at WP:RFP/R, as it has since run out? Thank you for your time in advance! AntiCedros (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCedros:  Done Good luck and happy editing! --qedk (t 心 c) 13:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN posting

I saw you said you were new to ITN posting; if it helps, this is my workflow. Once I make sure it might be ready, I open the article and do a quick review on it myself. After I make sure it is good and open at least one source to make sure the death is real, I ctrl+click Template:In the news, every 'give credit' button, and the edit button on the nomination. I change the nomination to include the word posted, I make the edit to the ITN template, and then I use ctrl+tab and click 'submit' on every page. It makes it go pretty quick and I don't forget any pages that way. Sorry if that was all obvious, and thanks for your ITN work! Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: No way, thanks a lot! I'm tech-savvy enough to intern (unpaid ofc ) but somehow I can't see the well-made little "give credit" link. Facepalm Facepalm --qedk (t 心 c) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for trying for Jennifer Bate for me, however you might try for Rolf Huisgen ;) - sad record, four people one day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Will definitely try ; time doesn't seem to wait for anything. --qedk (t 心 c) 07:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thank you, - that poor fellow (99, almost Nobel prize) was exposed only for a few hours, while the sensational one I thought was premature to post is still there ... - and Penderecki will possibly never come, because of a few citations missing, - strange world, ITN, but you reach more readers than DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
​ Just posted Pendericki! --qedk (t 心 c) 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow! I believe in miracles again!! Thank you!!! - Wonderful images greeting us in your edit notice, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad you like them, Gerda. (: It's some difficult times and it's the small miracles that make my day. --qedk (t 心 c) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you could produce the small miracle of turning to the Huisgen nom and click on every "credit" therin? ... and same for Penderecki, if you haven't done so? - A bot takes care of the article talk, but not of the users, don't ask me why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Done now! The community doesn't like bots to interact with editors with positive reinforcement for some reason (hence, no welcome bots, barnstar bots, etc.) so probably that. --qedk (t 心 c) 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Any help?

I submitted below request tohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iseefire1001

User Iseefire1001 using multiple IPs causing edit wars and vandalism by removing and altering content on the pages.

Latest Article going through edit war is "Second Anglo Afghan war"

Other pages previously user did the same was to:

Battle of Saragarhi Afghan Sikh war HaughtonBrit (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@HaughtonBrit: Seems unrelated. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A request

I remain very much intent on leaving this project because of how I've been treated over the last two years or so, but that doesn't justify this. It's been less than a week since you told both of us to stop needling each other -- I dutifully stayed the **** away from Andy, and he posted the above unprovoked attack. Would you please reiterate your previous request to knock it off? Not asking for any administrative action, just a reminder.

Might as well also ping Cullen328 (talk · contribs).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Given that you're blocked now, I think there's more imperative issues at hand. I would comment on this but I don't want to spark a debate that would not be ideal in your future unblock appeals. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Denied rights

Hi, you recently denied my request for reviewing Pending changes. I believe you were misguided by the bot. at the time I made the request, my account was younger than 30 days. however, after the bot left the message, my account has aged, and now it is quite a bit older than 30 days. If you wouldn't mind, I would love if you reviewed my request again, as I think I am fit for the permission. if your opinion still stands, that is also fine, I will accept it and I will try and get more experience and resubmit. thanks for considering. :) Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Scaledish, my apologies for the late reply. It's not about the age of your account, you need more edits to demonstrate that you understand core Wikipedia policies. Hope that helps! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: a response is better than no response! thanks for clearing that up. that's a big help. out of curiosity, why is the limit that low if its not a good amount? thanks, and kudos, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 18:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Scaledish: The reviewer usergroup is fairly easy to attain with some experience, which factors in your knowledge of policies and age of your account, at the time of filing the request, your mainspace edit count was nowhere close to what someone with experience would have. The bot simply gives simple statistics that might be useful, it doesn't have anything to do with actually granting the right, since that decision lies with the administrator only. Oh, and you don't need to ping me on my talk page, I automatically get a notification. Good luck and happy editing! --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Well, I was just reviewing my draft decline text when I saw that we were both working on the same application. Here's where I had got to: "I've had a look at some of your articles and I find issues with all of them. Missing DEFAULTSORT, orphaned articles, and Committee Against Torture (UN) needs a decent review. Always issues with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. But I also note that you haven't created any articles in the last ten months and given that the purpose of Autopatrolled is to reduce the workload of new pages reviewers (as opposed to hat collecting), I don't see what this application is going to achieve in the first instance." What do you make of that? If you were looking at the same articles you may have seen them in the state after I had fixed them up. Schwede66 21:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Most of the articles I looked at seemed OK, like the CAT (UN) one which indeed you improved quite a bit. Most of their articles have gone through some level of work since they edited it (hence my granting of the permission) - but they seem to understand core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV) albeit not style guidelines like MOS, BIDIRECTIONAL from my observation of their last edited revisions. If you wish to revoke the autopatrolled right, I would take no issue with that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Fona2000

Hi QEDK Do not think this treatment is okay. Blocking is not the answer. Please contact me so we can find a good solution. I’ll promise I won’t do anymore damage. / Fona 2000 Zimba1810 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You are evading your block which is already a bad start. I've replied with more instructions on your talk page. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"From" still missing from uw-pblock

Hey. You fixed it once, but the missing "from" is now back (example). The text still reads "You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week certain areas of the encyclopedia" — instead of "You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia." What do you think went wrong? El_C 15:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It's been on the back of my mind for a while, see Template talk:Uw-pblock#"From from" for context. Basically the last time that I added "from", I broke a ton of the other partial block templates which produced erroneous "from"s. The current template is quite sensitive to changes so I have to test it again before I add the "from", another additional issue is that Twinkle automatically adds the "from", so people using Twinkle will see "from from". I'll try to get a fix out in the coming few days. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, qedk. Sounds good. El_C 15:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick pointer to Template_talk:Uw-pblock#Missing_"from"_still_a_problem, qedk. Thanks again. El_C 05:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@El C: On it! --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Phew! That's good to hear. El_C 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Should be fixed now, take a look. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just tested it and it is indeed fixed now. Nicely done, qedk! El_C 07:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Works and awards in infobox

Hi there. As per Template:Infobox person, "the "works" variant is intended to link to a specific list article for a larger body of work (not all of which may be individually notable" and "If [awards are] many, link to an appropriate section of the article instead." Mentioning a selective few makes the infobox bloat IMO. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Template documentation is not policy or a guideline, it's just meant to assist people not used to the template. High-quality articles like Satyajit Ray and Vincent van Gogh frequently have long infoboxes, it's not considered bloat because the infobox is meant to provide information at a glace, links to other articles simply don't help (links to sections of the same article are still somewhat OK) but the ideal way is to atleast present a notable few. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that FA-quality articles like Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, and Angelina Jolie link to the respective articles, instead of having smaller, subjective lists. The lead, however, is where their notable works and awards should be highlighted. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

pending changes

@QEDK: around a month ago you gave me pending changes reviewer rights. It was set for an expiration time of 1 month which is about to occur. I would like to continue contributing in this field and helping out people who want to contribute. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jcoolbro: I see that Cabayi already granted you the bit, so no issues. Good luck and happy editing! --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

User:QEDKbot

Hello, QEDK,

I am coming across categories that your bot has tagged so I wanted to look at recent tagging it has done. But when I go to the bot's contribution page, it just lists User:QEDKbot/Task 1 status (which is an empty page), not specific edits. If I go to the deleted contributions, it lists the individual edits but, apparently, not before the pages are deleted.

Is there a way to see the edits made by the bot before they are deleted? Is there a page where the contributions are listed? Thank you for any information you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: You can see the deletion logs at User:QEDKbot/Deletion catlog and the tagging logs at User:QEDKbot/Catlog. A lot of them are reverted by me as I clear out the false positives so a lot of them are probably not tagged anymore. It used to log all pages before but now it only tags pages it actually edits, so it is a bit all over the place. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, QEDK. That is what I was looking for. I just want to scan the page and see if anything jumps out. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The bot doesn't seem to notice when there is an Empty cat tag ({{emptycat}}) on categories. And I see an "ambiguous name tag" on categories, which I've never seen before. I'm not sure why those categories are prevented from being deleted if the categories are empty and the names are not appropriate. Some of these Empty Cat categories have never had any contents and I believe the tags should just be removed but that would probably involve a larger discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It's also listing category redirects and some of these edits listed seem old and not recent. Are these just lists of mistakes? Are all current edits listed here? I think this will be my final comment! Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: Those are mostly old afaik, previously I was using a regex-style matching technique for checking templates, which meant that the bot would often miss out pages due to not excluding all redirects of a certain template, now I am using template matching, so now it will check if the category has a transclusion of the template, {{Empty category}} and so on. I noticed one issue with the new style, but that was probably a cache/Pywikibot issue, rest looks good. If you found any other errors in the last run (which uses the new system), let me know. I will be doing a final run in the coming week, so you can keep track with the coming edits. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit filters

Hello QEDK. I noticed your name at WP:EFN. Is there some place one can read about the security needed around private filters? I'm mostly concerned with not leaking information to vandals if I issue a block and mention one of the filters in the block summary. The numbers of the filters are not a secret? I have started handling some of the bot reports at AIV and the bad actors are often documented by their filter log. Thanks for any info, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Most private filters are related to LTAs and prolific sockpuppeteers, even if you include the filter number they will not be able to see the content or logs of the filter. There are also common vandalism filters that are generally not private (some of them used to be, but it was decided they should not be). You can include the filter number but it might not be for the best, although mostly vandals won't make the click, check the regex and work too hard to make their edits not hit the filter. I recommend adding a generic comment like <!-- See edit filter log --> instead of the filter number, similar to what Twinkle has an option of adding to block summaries. To sum up, all filters are public (so you can see the title and other basic details) but for private filters, you cannot see logs or the pattern. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Main page/styles.css

The page type is not correct, it's a normal page instead of sanitized CSS, it's probably better to just to move Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox2/styles.css to Main page/styles.css.– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: The page is at Template:Main Page/styles.css. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You're right, but that doesn't make sense, if the main page is in the main namespace than so should it's styles.css, so you should be using :Main Page/styles.css for the src and I think you should also add /* {{Pp}} */ to the top.
@BrandonXLF: Alright, let me see! I did not know you could force it to use the Main Page/styles.css so just moved to Template-space. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 Fixed​ --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
QEDK, also change the content model at Special:ChangeContentModel/Main_Page/styles.css and protect the page as transclusion protection doesn't seem to work for template styles. – BrandonXLF (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I just realized I was looking at Main page/styles.css, no clue why that page even exists or why I had that tab open. I think the template should be /* {{Pp|small=yes}} */ as the banner won't display on a CSS page but the indicator will.– BrandonXLF (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Creffett clerking

I object to the clerking you did at Creffett's RfA. While some was general discussion much was entirely on point and relevant. There have been many such discussions at Eek's RfA and I think, considering it's a discussion, the process has been better for it. I would encourage you to rethink that clerk and/or hat/more selectively clerk parts of that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: The current discussion regarding SW's oppose is more of a philosophical discussion regarding percentages and error rates and it's clear that it's two different viewpoints and it's about perspective, there's no objectively correct answer. At the time of moving it to the talk page, it was a wall of text taking up more than 20 supports' worth of space - it's quite common for such long discussions at RfA to be moved to the talk page. Hatting selectively is not quite of a good move because that would mean I assume some points to be more valid than others, I simply moved it for the sake of convenience, so voters would be able to go through the votes at a reasonable pace and still see further discussion on the talk page if they wished to, a wall of text is not helpful imo and most people will ignore it right away. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick (film)

Hello, you have deleted this article Bicycle Kick (film) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Kick (film)). I did not get any notification of this nomination, so I was not aware of this discussion at all. I got yo know today only when the poster was nominated for deletion as an orphan.

The film was reviewed by several national newspaper such as The Times of India. The movie, according to ToI is one of the most successful Bengali directorial debuts. The movie is one of the most incredible Bengali sports films, per ToI. The film is also reviewed by regional newspapers as well, such as Anandabazar Patrika (ABP, which is the most circulated Bengali newspaper in India). Thanks --Titodutta (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Titodutta: The article was soft-deleted. I can restore it if you want. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of this article against #1 of WP:NFILMS? --Titodutta (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Titodutta: I'm not sure what you mean by NFILMS#1 but if you're talking about WP:NFO's #1, it fails - at best, the only critic review is the ABP one (সুপ্রিয় মুখোপাধ্যায়, if he can be regarded as a well-known critic, a quick search reveals nothing) since the TOI is published under a byline so it cannot qualify under the criterion. The film clearly failes WP:GNG (see "bicycle kick" bengali film) so your best shot is to find other WP:NFO criteria to meet, I have not evaluated the other criteria and can restore it at request but it can be AFDed due to lack of notability again. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the reason I am waiting to find more source. If it is going to be deleted again, no need to restore. I need at least 2–3 full-length reviews in notable newspapers. Things like one of the most successful Bengali debut/sports film don't establish notability, and help a little at that time. The film name is so problematic (the football shot, other movies with similar title) that it is difficult to search. I am trying to find. Thanks for your co-operation. --Titodutta (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Good luck! Feel free to come by if you want it restored (or restore it yourself, you have free reign :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1050

Looks like a side effect of the recent 1050 changes were that reverts made by Drmies are no longer themselves revertable by non-confirmed users. Any ideas? I figure we may want to fix that, although on the other hand this might not be the worst idea. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Good catch! I added a simple regex so system undos (non-confirmed cannot use rollback) will still go through. If you feel it was some use, feel free to restore. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot going haywire

QEDKbot is currently mass tagging category redirects (for example, Category:Argentines) as empty, which they should be. Regardless of whether this was intentional or merely a side effect, please make it stop, as these redirects now flood the maintenance category. Glades12 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glades12: That is the bot's function, it sorts categories with no apparent use into the maintanence category (that I made). You can find the BRFA and related discussion on the userpage. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood me. This is not about actual, non-redirecting categories; it is about category redirects. Template:Category redirect specifically states that they are meant to be empty, and they should under no circumstance be deleted for that reason alone. Glades12 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Glades12: I am aware they are supposed to be empty, hence the "with no backlinks", basically weeding out redirects that serve no usage. They can deleted with G6, hence the patrolling category. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Consider me an objector to that practice. Glades12 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Alright, that's understandable, I was just clarifying that the bot is not malfunctioning but functioning under its mandate. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a better section title, so I went with this exaggerated one. Sorry for that. Glades12 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
No pressure! Good day. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your minnow, good sir?

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

As requested on IRC Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well-received. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ten Years on Wikipedia!

Hey, QEDK. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear QEDK/Archive 11,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Chris troutman. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Why requested move changed to ?

The Death of George Floyd discussion was about a specific proposal, what does it mean that it is about ? now? Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I reverted myself in a minute, probably saw it betweent that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The bot changed the template on the article to ?. I reverted it, then reverted myself, because I thought you were accomplishing something by doing it. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My bad. Facepalm Facepalm --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QEDK/Archive_11&oldid=1181995607"