User talk:RA0808/Archives2017/February

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello RA0808/Archives2017,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

KHPT/KGLK combination

Hello, RA0808.

I would like an explanation as to why the KGLK and KHPT pages were separated by you after I combined the two. The two facilities are in full simulcast, as they have been for the past 5 years. Really makes little sense to have two different wikipedia pages for one combined format.

Please refer to the KTJM/KJOJ page that is combined, as well. Same market, two frequencies in full compliment of one another, utilizing the same Wiki page for both facilities.

I'm sure you meant no harm, but after nearly 20 minutes of work combining the two, then to have the entire contribution wiped away by a user that likely has no association with this City or its radio properties is fairly upsetting.

I would appreciate the immediate reversal of your edit to both pages, and restoration of the work I put forth. If you can further add to it, that would be fantastic. If not, then please, leave well enough alone.

Thank you, Joe Joe Polichino (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Polichino: Hi Joe, thank you for letting me know. I was mistakenly under the impression that the KHPT article had predated it being a satellite of KGLK. I've redone the merge of the two pages, however in future please follow the procedures at WP:MERGE (including appropriate templates and such). RA0808 ^talk_contribs 20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RA0808. I appreciate the quick response and feedback. I am, of course, still learning all of the various procedures (i.e. correctly merging topics) and always welcome any assistance provided to me. Have a great day and week, RA0808! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Polichino (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

my edit

i believe that you should let me use my edit because the passage was way too long and people are not going to spend time reading it, so that is why i made a smaller, simple version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogie335 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Soundings Podcast because it was founded by two notable people and therefore has a credible claim of significance. Please be careful with speedy deletion as it does bypass consensus-based processes. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, you reverted my edit on Khasi language, I had requested in talk page to please not revert edits for one week. 31.215.192.164 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am relocating the main parts of the article, not vandalizing, can you please revert it back? I can't do it on my phone. 31.215.192.164 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@31.215.192.164: Done. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Stewart's Melville College

Hi, I see you have been reverting the removal of some content that was in a "notable former pupils" section of an article about a school. The IP that was removing the content might not have offered adequate explanation in their edit summaries, but I think removal of content was justified. While there appears to have been some press coverage of a recording of an unsavoury incident involving a University student, this doesn't make an individual notable as a former pupil of a school. The link included was to a student association, not an article on the individual. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: To me it seemed like someone wanting to sanitize the page from a negative story that was somewhat well-covered in RS, but if you agree it was justified I won't revert it further. Thanks for letting me know! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it was only when I looked into the content itself that I could see what was going on here. It is a negative story, but one that appears to reflect badly on a University student association- the individual student that was filmed doesn't appear to be notable himself. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

hello

Sure, many different sources don't have New England (and even Western New England) as a unified accent. Here is a map by William Labov here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_English#/media/File:North_American_English_dialect_regions.jpg You even have maps like these that go into major detail about the various North American accents. http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#LargeMap3Left These are just a couple of examples. Many other University maps of that sort don't show any unity whatsoever between New England. New England has numerous dialect division. Also, I have first hand knowledge that Vermont is not General American because my sister works in the voice over industry. She had to suppress her "Vermont" accent to sound general american. She was 23 years old when this happened (meaning she was from the "younger" generation). This is obviously not a source, but it backs what these other sources have said about a supposedly "Western new Endhland English" or that New England is "general american." Too many other sources back that this is not the case. SirUltimos (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@SirUltimos: First hand knowledge is, unfortunately, not sufficient. If you can cite some of these "too many other sources" (as long as they are reliable sources) to back up the changes then I invite you to go ahead and make changes to the article again. Please note that continuing to remove cited information without providing sources may be seen as disruptive editing by other editors. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Would the Labov map be considered a source, as it's used on wikiepdia (and sourced)? SirUltimos (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@SirUltimos: Maps can be a source, but making interpretations from them would be considered synthesis. If you can find sources that reference/interpret the map that would be best. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

BAMN

Hey thanks for your effort to seek out sources. Here is some video tape evidence that the group known as "BAMN" is a terrorist organization.

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuWoQfZgW7M this video shows Yvette Falarca getting violent, and encouraging violence with her BAMN followers.

Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2dd1YoDULg After this violence she is interviewed. She again advocates for violence, and declares BAMN advocates for violence.

I could list dozens and dozens and dozens of things that point to them being "Terrorists" and not "civil rights activists". The group literally means "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" They have made it quite apparent that violence is included in that time, and time again.

Terrorism = The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Civil Rights = The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.

They are actually an anti-civil rights terrorist group. They want to shut down free speech, a civil right, and will do so violently (which makes them terrorists).

Yihman1 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yihman1: YouTube videos are not typically reliable sources unless they are produced by a source otherwise seen as reliable (i.e. a news organization), and this includes the second video which is a primary source. Note that under the policy on original research editors should "not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so", as you did above. Please see WP:RS for information on what constitutes are reliable source. Additionally, your addition of the political epithet "regressive left" makes me question if you are staying within policies on neutrality, so I recommend consulting WP:NPOV. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I do what I can to stay neutral, and not politically partisan. I have some left views, and some right views, as most do, but that is neither here nor there as violence is violence regardless of who is committing the act of violence. Labeling BAMN as "Regressive Left" instead of "Left-Wing" is fair because they use violence as a means to attempt to achieve their goals, and they advocate for violence. It is unfair to simply label this group as left wing to those on both sides as they are extremists.

As for "Reliable Secondary Sources" that is rather humorous. There is no need to site a secondary source if a primary source is reliable. The second video is directly from the horses mouth. For instance, if Group X had that "Our policy is Y" on their website, and it's plain and clear for all to read then an article about "Group X" using the website made by Group X about "Our policy is Y". Advocating for violence is advocating for violence no matter how you paint it. No matter what the source is. There is nothing dubious in her words. There are no "interpretations" to be had. She speaks in clear English for all to understand she wishes for more violence, and more riots.

Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. A secondary source has always gone through the filter of a writer, and they will paint it with their narrative. It's the difference between truth, and propaganda.

Who decides what a reliable source is?

Someone on the left will say Brietbart is not a reliable source.

Someone on the right will say Huffington Post is not a reliable source.

Someone on the left will say Fox News is not a reliable source.

Someone on the right will say CNN is not a reliable source.

I could go on and on and on... Many of these so called "Reliable Sources" lean one way or the other making them less reliable.

News writers are not bound to being not bias, and by using them as a filter it can make articles more biased, and not less biased.

That being said, secondary sources should not be excluded, but nor should primary.

Encyclopedia's should be a source of Truth. Not an extension of news media propaganda.

Yihman1 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yihman1: The term "regressive left" is a prejorative political epithet, and using it goes against the requirement under WP:NPOV to use nonjudgemental language. The same way that referring to Objectivists (or Libertarians as a whole) as "Rand-droids" or calling Jeb Bush a "cuckservative" is not acceptable under NPOV.

As I mentioned before... under Wikipedia's policy of no original research, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Your synthesis of the contents of the second video is no less biased than reporting on it from any of the list of news outlets you rattled off. I would advise you to actually read the policies and guidelines in question, and if you have any questions about them take it up with the helpful folks at the WP:Teahouse. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Buyck

Hi Ra, the page is now in English, is this suitable for you? I have no idea how to translate it differently, so let me know if we can keep it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovic Peters (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ludovic Peters: Thank you for doing the translation! I've tagged the page just to have a second set of eyes take a look at it. Personally I don't know if the page will stay, but I will leave that up to another editor to decide if they have any issues. Cheers! RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maths desk archiving

I see you have taken a question asked on 8 February out of the archive and put it back on the desk. Questions only remain current for a week to prevent the desk becoming cluttered, so why did you take this action? If you wish to change the archiving parameters you should seek consensus at the talk page. 86.148.119.30 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out and apologies for the mistaken warning! From my perspective in Huggle it looked like you had simply removed the content, but when I pull up your contribs I can see that it was being archived. In future, though, please use an edit summary to indicate you are archiving to avoid the confusion. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 17:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nina Menkes

HI, I am not sure how to use this, so I hope you get this message. I have explained that I am a living person (Nina Menkes) and due to serious privacy concerns I do want personal data displayed on wikipedia. I hope you can honor this reality. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.213.129 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no way at this time to verify that you are, in fact, Menkes and the content is entirely aligned with Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy continuing to remove it will be seen as disruptive. The content you object to is already publicly available on the Internet from the cited links. If you are actually Nina Menkes and you still have concerns after reviewing the BLP policy you can contact the Wikipedia Voluntary Response team (also known as OTRS) at info-en-q@wikimedia.org and they will get back to you as soon as they can. In the meantime, continuing to remove content will be seen as disruptive and may lead to your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia temporarily. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I will write to them immediately. In the meantime, Im happy to prove my identity to you in anyway that would satisfy; please advise. We are, also, working to have the original sources taken off the net, but those are less immediately accessible than wikipedia. I will again remove the info., ask that you honor this. Meanwhile, let me know how I can help you believe that I am referring tom yself? Thanks. NM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.213.129 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OTRS will verify your identity in a way they deem acceptable. If you remove the content again you will receive a warning for disruptive editing and being in violation of the Three Revert Rule which may result in a block. Please leave the page alone as it stands. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Canadian federal political parties

Those aren't parties. They're caucuses. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: If we have previously listed numbers of "Independent Liberal" and "Independent Conservative" MPs on par with the other parties (not lumping them in under "Independent"), why don't we do the same for senators? I understand they may not be registered political parties by EC but for all intents and purposes they are parties within the structures of Parliament, albeit not treated as well in the case of the ISG. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 02:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably an argument to make on the talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: Good point. I've put something up there. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

A beer for you!

Because ICE CUBE vandalized Wikipedia DIRECTIVEA113 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)