Jump to content

User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/October

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


Ooops

Hey, Sorry about my booboo at AE. Zerotalk 10:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: No worries at all! got a great laugh out of it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK Wrapped

Hi Leeky – quick question about DYK wrapped. Is there any easier/more automated way of curating the hook views in a month that I'm not aware of, or is it just what I had to do in terms of copying page names to wmtools and seeing the views on that day? Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion: i think Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders is probably what you're looking for! And thank you from bringing back the DYK wrapped (: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
... did you really copy a couple hundred articles into WM tools to try and find the top five? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep. #regrets DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I was doing the exact same thing three years ago 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. - I took your advice to post desperate need for help/support on my talk. Nothing right now, but please watch it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Celebrity Number Six

On 4 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Celebrity Number Six, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that retired model Leticia Sardá had no idea that she was the subject of a four-year global search? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Celebrity Number Six. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Celebrity Number Six), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 16,206 views (675.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A racecar for you!

A racecar for you!
Hi Leeky, great to meet you this weekend! Hope you had a good conference experience and got home safe. Will reach back out to talk about video stuff soon :) Accedietalk to me 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Accedie: It was lovely to meet you as well! Looking forward to hearing from you :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer and DYK

Hi Theleekycauldron, regarding your post on TheNuggeteer's talkpage, I stepped in to try and save one of their nominations I had previously criticized at Template:Did you know nominations/Liberalism in the Philippines. If you would be able to review that hook, I'm hoping that the article rework (all using the existing sources) and different hook style might be a helpful example, especially as it seems that even one of their DYKNA ones looks about to be shut out. CMD (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: no promises, but I can take a look :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah and I see they have accepted your offer. I suspect if they touch a DYK page directly it'll cause some issues, but otherwise this is an existing purpose for mentorship. There's a knack for finding sources, for sure. CMD (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I did do my best to make it clear that they shouldn't be touching or editing the DYK pages at all – perhaps I should've re-stressed that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Reminders as mentorship goes on should be fine, if this proceeds. CMD (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi 2600:1014:B1E4:96EE:AC61:C792:AC15:3DF9 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award for Celebrity Number Six

The Deletion to Quality Award
For your contributions to bring Celebrity Number Six (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Number Six) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! TompaDompa (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

follow-up on Talk:Hurricane Helene

Hi,

I suppose I need to respond in a significant way because I really cannot allow this to stand unanswered

  • given that you've gotten into similar trouble before in other places where? when? is it a material, recurring pattern of behavior?
  • Looking through your talk page, I don't think this is an isolated incident please cite examples to demonstrate a material, recurring pattern of behavior
  • you've left a whopping 16 of the 40 comments I created the topic to request an edit be restored, and others responded and we discussed it. I was the protaganist, if you will, of the thread, so it should not be surprising that I made a large proportion of the edits. the ONUS was on me.
  • Some of your comments are straight-up aspersions #1 you noted was a response to an editor, but it was not directed at the editor, it was a comment about a recurring pattern I've observed about a good number of editors. #2 also was not directed at anyone, and I am confident the editor I responded to knows that; it was simply a comment into the void
  • you deleted another user's comment I have a very strict rule: never, ever mess with anyone's Talk edits. if anyone sees I have, they can bet the farm it was in error, as in this case. when the other editor mentioned it, I had no idea what they were talking about, simply because I had not consciously deleted it, and consequently I skipped it for the time being, and continued with my response to the matter at hand, so it was not a "gotcha." only later did I realize, "oops, how'd that happen?"
  • needlessly aggressive and/or sarcastic I see no problems with three of your examples, and the other two were only lightly tinged with sarcasm. there certainly was no aggression. please would you explain how these edits are troublesome?
  • bludgeon in log: you did not mention bludgeon in your edit, but I see you included it in your log entry. if you search the last five years of my Talk page, you will find exactly one mention of bludgeon, for which I was recently sanctioned. but that was for another article, not this article, and including it in the log suggests it's pattern of behavior, but it clearly is not. there isn't even evidence of bludgeon in this article
  • battleground and incivility in log: I think I adequately explained above why incivility is a specious allegation, and I believe battleground is also specious, as the topic was a contentious matter and there was direct communication, perhaps intensely direct at times, as contentious matters can tend to be, but that did not rise to battleground. please would you cite an example of where it did?

in summary, I find your edit unsupported by evidence and thus unwarranted, and I request you strike it and delete the log entry. the latter broadcasts to others that I'm a bad person who needs to be watched, and it could in the future be used by someone to assert that I've been repeatedly found to be a troublemaker. I find it a gratuitous and unjustified black mark on my reputation.

I would normally keep a warning like this informal, which I believe you should have done here, as in "hey, cool it." soibangla (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved comments

I have to second Soibangla's response to this shocking and over-the-top warning. I have examined each point and diff. It's as if it was placed on the wrong user's page, on the page of what the research (featured at The Signpost) calls a "Pro-Fringe" (PF) editor (which damage the credibility of Wikipedia), instead of the "Anti-Fringe" (AF) editor which Soibangla is, one whose defense of Wikipedia from bogus information based on unreliable sources provably increases the credibility of Wikipedia, according to that research.

I am not saying that any particular group of editors should not be held to the same behavioral standards, but these are controversial topic areas, so if one does not understand the context, normal and proper behavior can be judged unfairly and too severely. None of us, including you, are perfect, and we do need a heads-up sometimes. That's okay, but this was an overreaction based on misunderstandings of most of the "evidence". I suggest the warning and log be removed and changed to a much shorter list of diffs with your concerns on Soibangla's talk page. That will be enough of a warning to effect needed change. Soibangla is a loyal editor. I think you have misread most of those diffs. I understand the context and see them in a very different light. Very few, if any, would ever result in an individual sanction of consequence, at most a short cautionary word on the talk page. That's enough. This was far too severe and truly damaging to Soibangla and the credibility of Wikipedia. That you may have gotten some support should be tempered with a "consider who it is that's supporting you". Certain types of editors will defend your actions, and that's not a good thing when they do it. When that type of editor sides with your warning, that says you came down too hard on the wrong person. Your warning serves the interests of PF editors, those who damage Wikipedia, IOW against both RS and Verifiability. You will find that Soibangla is one of our most determined and faithful defenders and appliers of those policies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see a seasoned Admin log what appears to me to be an ill-considered and unfounded tag on Soibangla. These things take on a life of their own and too often are later cited by eager newbie admits and drama board groupies, where they are used as ad hominems to legitimize aspersions and undocumented claims. The log should be scraped. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean and SPECIFICO: Thank you both for your thoughts :) I'm just catching up with all of this – as I told soibangla at their talk, I don't have a lot of time at the moment to give this the attention it deserves. Hopefully I'll be able to write something up within a few days. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I see you have been on-wiki for a few days. please might we resume discussing this? soibangla (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@soibangla: for sure :) tomorrow is a little uncertain, but barring anything serious coming up, I plan to send you a reply within 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Just stumbling across this now. But if it's of any relevance, I genuinely recall reading that talk page thread when it originally occurred and also concluded that a lot of that was needlessly aggressive/dismissive. Particularly, I don't see how any editor (involved or otherwise) could possibly think that ending multiple comments with "HAHAHA!" in all caps in response to legitimate talk page posts is even remotely close to reasonable behavior. I've never seen any user do that. Of course no track record is perfect, but we're kidding ourselves if we're not saying that it's peculiar at the very least. Just10A (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, to be clear here: the argument being made here, explicitly, is that users should be permitted to disregard policy if they have the correct political opinions? jp×g🗯️ 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The answer is "obviously not". (You should read my comment. The second paragraph indicates there should be no double standard.) I will say that when two editors are acting with borderline civility violations, both should be warned, but the AF editor who is defending Wikipedia's credibility should be viewed more favorably than the PF editor who is acting in a pro-fringe, manner. IOW, context should be considered.
The main problem here is overkill. To the degree there actually is a violation, it's not serious enough to warrant so strong a sanction. Using a scan of the talk page is not a good way to make such a judgment. Some of these supposed problems were not real problems or were resolved. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Valjean: I appreciate your concern about the credibility of the project, but my focus here is on user conduct. When editors are incivil to each other, that ruins the credibility of Wikipedia by slowly wearing down the resolve of conflict-avoidant good faith editors over time. If there's some context that would make those diffs look normal, that basically tells me that you're accustomed to reading this kind of aggression and incivility, which I'm not thrilled to hear.
To your point about pro- and anti-fringe editors, that's not a bias I think admins should be incorporating into their enforcement, but they do, and I'll refer you to the conversation you, soibangla, and SPECIFICO had with Tamzin a couple years ago at soibangla's talk page, which I felt was pretty circumstantially similar to what I'm seeing here.
@SPECIFICO: I can't really speak to that; I judge whether or not a warning should be given by whether or not a warning is necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Response

Hi there, soibangla :) thanks so much for waiting. I'll do my best to answer your questions, although there are quite a few; I'll try and prevent this from becoming too long. To recap where we were, you were having a spirited discussion over at Talk:Hurricane Helene, and I warned you because some of your comments fell short of conduct expectations, particularly in a CTOP area. Here's some elaboration on what I was talking about before:

You're arguing that what you said is in no way a response to the substance of PackMecEng's comment, just a mostly-irrelevant polemic on the general nature of editors who cite UNDUE, but PackMecEng is an exception. Unless you're frequently prone to veering into vague, off-topic thoughts on policies when they're cited against you, I don't think a reasonable reader would interpret what you said that way.

  • some editors seem to have proven they really, really don't like reliable sources calling Trump an outright liar and a conspiracy theorist as he disrupts a life/death crisis for several days. what could possibly cause them to feel that way? I, for one, am baffled. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're telling me that this is in no way meant to be an aspersion towards PackMecEng. There are only two other editors opposing your position at this time, neither of whom are opposing as loudly as PackMecEng. So, I again just don't see how a reasonable interpreter would see your comments as being irrelevant to PackMecEng.

  • No reason for this to be it's own section, its the content from above. Also don't delete my comment again. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    • but you deleted [the paragraph I wrote at Hurricane Helene] rather than make a simple fix. HAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC) [context from this edit]
      • it was a new topic specifically about your action and your words. then you say it's a section issue rather than a content issue, so when I wondered why you didn't just do an easy fix for the section issue, you now say it's synth and undue, without substantiating either. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Because it was not worth having in the article? How is that confusing to you, what can I do to help? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
          • yeah yeah, sure. nuthin' to see here, folks!

          By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

          soibangla (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense that you didn't see her comment when you reverted. Mistakes happen, but when someone tells you "hey, don't do that" and you're not sure what they mean, the correct response is "I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you clarify?", not what you wrote. Maybe you didn't see her comment, but you could've really easily chosen not to turn the heat up, as you did with two really aggressive comments. Then, when they're frustrated in kind, you responded sarcastically.

As for your other comments, I'm not sure which you were defending and which you weren't, so I'll just elaborate on my thoughts about all the ones I haven't mentioned yet. If you're struggling to see how these could be interpreted as dismissive, I hope this helps.

  • ...40513: Ah, it looks like I misunderstood this one a bit – looking closer at it, it looks like you didn't get what Valjean was talking about. You seem to think they're saying "the paragraph at Hurricane Helene should be merged into another section", but it looks more to me like they're saying "the thread you started on the talk page should be merged into the previous thread". Still, you're asking loaded questions. I would've written "sure, maybe the paragraph didn't need to be in its own section, but I would've preferred that the content get merged rather than deleted."
  • ...43394 and ...48522: I assume these are the two you say are sarcastic. I do agree, I think "uh-huh, yeah" and "yeah yeah, sure." are very dismissive ways of giving a refutation to someone's point.
  • ...37463: I think you're using a very literal interpretation of "perfectly good content". You're assuming that PackMecEng's position is that only perfectly good content can be in articles and using that to argue against them, which I don't think is reasonable. It's much more likely that it was hyperbole.

I'll speed through the rest of the bullet points quickly, since this is quickly unspooling to be way too long. Being flippant about other people's arguments (see above) is battleground conduct. I mentioned bludgeoning because you took up nearly half of the comments in the discussion. You have two topic tempbans, one of which is still active, the other of which you were blocked for violating, all under AP2 – and I do see a lot of similarities between the 2022 tban and this warning. Given all of the above, I thought that a warning would be helpful to prompt you to reexamine your conduct at the thread – the same warning (in fact, probably a bit more lenient) I'd give to a new editor or a "pro-fringe" editor with the same conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Your Revert Spamming

For a user to revert their own edits or to revert vandalism twice has never been against policy. Please refer to Wikipedia policy before spamming my talk page with baseless and bombastic accusations. Thanks,

Beach00 Beach00 (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Beach00: Thanks for reminding me about this one. I warned you for a narrow WP:1RR violation based on a couple of edits, but looking at the history at Hassan Nasrallah, I'm actually seeing a whopping nine edits on September 28 to assert that Nasrallah was dead before reliable sources confirmed it, many with misleading edit summaries such as "Fixed typo" or "Fixed grammar". If I'd noticed that you reverted my arbitration enforcement action of reverting the 1RR violations to the last stable version, I would have just blocked you for a week. As it is, I'm just going to log the previously-informal warning at WP:AELOG for edit-warring and disruptive editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
And no, the edits you reverted were neither vandalism nor your own, unless I'm missing something. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024. 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.

DMH223344 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Apologies for my snark back there. Keep up the good work. Bon appétit! SerialNumber54129 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Many thanks! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment on contested draftification

Why did you revert my comment [1]? It appears to me that I entered it at 2353 GMT, 24 October. Was there a rule that I did not see that closed comments at some time before the end of the GMT day, or was there some other problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You may disregard this question. I see that your revert was reverted. I see that this was a sort of race condition in which it was humans who were almost colliding. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Aren't we both up late/early?

Congrats on what seems to be a thrilling election season on en.wiki. There's been less campaigning than I expected, but definitely some activity. Regardless of what happens, we're going to get a good crop of new sysops. Bunch of folks stepped up. A tiny bit of this is on you, kiddo. This is community at work. Very proud to be your bud, this am. BusterD (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"She's a witch, I saw her at the devil's sacrament!" "And what were you doing at the devil's sacrement?"
I'm really, really excited to see the new class of admins – a bit of what it felt like in '06! Lots of people worked incredibly hard to make all of the change the community's been wanting for so long, and it's a sight to see. And it means the world to be your friend :) it was so amazing to finally see you at WCNA!! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I know it's late on your coast, but what would it cost you and me to create a "Get Out The Vote!" wikilove and then spam every active wikipedian on their talk? A nickel? A quarter? Certainly less than a dollar. We have a few days. Surely a pagestalker could help. BusterD (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
We'd need an "I voted" sticker too. BusterD (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the GOTV message already went out, but I would 100% love to see a good wiki-themed "I voted". Like that fantastic new Michigan one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Fab to see so many budding admins. I would never have expected such a high turnout. Well done! Schwede66 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Main page images

Uh oh, I saw that message on Errors. That's an absolute no-no; don't ever have anything up when it's not protected. I make a point of opening an image on Commons and then trying to edit it to make double-sure that it's protected before I post anything. Maybe you haven't been around for long enough, but I've certainly seen hardcore porn being substituted when images are unprotected, and that is not a good look, as it were. Schwede66 00:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 and Amakuru: you're totally right, my bad! thanks for the catch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

GalliumBot down?

Apologies if you already know about this - I couldn't find anything mentioning it, but I probably didn't look hard enough :P GalliumBot seems to be down, since it hasn't edited anything since the 24th. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Suntooooth: thanks for letting me know! investigating :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I literally thought no one promoted anything for three full days straight!! I also remembered when your bot used to record changes to hooks post-promotions. JuniperChill (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fedorenko v. United States

The article Fedorenko v. United States you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fedorenko v. United States for comments about the article, and Talk:Fedorenko v. United States/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SilverLocust -- SilverLocust (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you so much, SilverLocust! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/October&oldid=1255601166"