User talk:Thepenguin9/Archives/2020/September

Removal of GA icon

What's going on with this? Removing a GA icon from a GA promoted article requires at least an explanation in the edit summary. SpinningSpark 01:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the GA process hadn't been followed, and I couldn't find a relevant Nomination on the GA noms page so I rolled back the edits until those more involved with the process could give it a once-over and restore it. Thepenguin9 (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why would it be on the nominations page? An article that has passed GA is removed from the nominations page because, duh, it is no longer a nomination, it is an actual GA. Anyway, I could forgive the mistake, but what is unforgiveable is the failure to do any one of explanatory edit summary, talk page comment, contact me (the proposer), contact the reviewer, or leave a comment at GA that something needs fixing (and what needed fixing you still haven't explained). SpinningSpark 09:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes which is why I searched for it in the revision history and went back a month or two and couldn't find it. I did not include an edit summary as I used the rollback feature which does not give the opportunity to provide one. While I will apologise for any mistakes, I am firm that my only mistake was not posting on the GA boards,and that the reversion was no mistake. Though I humbled that I would have to require your forgiveness. Thepenguin9 (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you have made multiple mistakes.

First of all, claiming use of rollback as an excuse for not leaving an edit summary will not wash. You need to read the guidelines at WP:Rollback. Not following them puts you in danger of having your rollback rights revoked. Continuing to claim it was ok to do it when clearly it was not puts you in danger of having your rollback rights revoked immediately. Rollback should only be used for vandalism and other disruptive editing. It is never an excuse for not leaving an edit summary as the guideline says: it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected.
I have no idea what nominations page you were looking at, but it clearly wasn't the current GA nominations page. It was on the page until 9:52 yesterday when the bot removed it in response to it being added to the GA articles. That all happended just a few hours before you removed the icon from the page. In any case, all that is just procedural formalities; the thing that actually counts is the review of the article, which is at Talk:Network synthesis/GA1 in this case.
It is not permissible to unilaterally remove articles from GA status. There is a process for that, it's called Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. It was not the reviewer who did not follow process as you claimed, they followed the GA process perfectly. It was you who was entirely out of order in not following process.

SpinningSpark 12:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My own internal reasoning for using rollback was because I thought the reason was clear. However I forgot to show my working out as it were for others to follow. The edit reason given for that edit was "Maintenance" and not the expected "passed ARTICLE". Which leads into my reasoning that this article may be a Good Article, but because the process was done in an abnormal way it's a sort of weakly met status. It is my understanding that reviews take more than just a single edit, and usually the editor reviewing the article would remember to sign edits. Thepenguin9 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting more than a little frustrated with this exchange. The quality of a review is not grounds for unilaterally revoking GA. Forgetting to sign is not grounds for unilaterally revoking a GA. Reviewing in one edit is a little unusual, but far from unprecedented, and definitely not grounds for unilaterally revoking a GA. A bot's edit summary is, frankly, an idiotic ground for revoking a GA. Simple question; do you, or do you not, accept that this was an inappropriate use of rollback. SpinningSpark 13:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that usage of rollback was inappropriate as reverting the edit in some other way would have lead to the same outcome. I do accept that along the way I made some mistakes, but that nothing I did was inappropriate, and instead misguided. Thepenguin9 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to reply to your edit summaries, I am not trying to justify something unjustifiable. I am justifying my actions with my thoughts and intentions at the time. I doubt my actions are impossible to justify. Thepenguin9 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, rollback revoked until you do understand what appropriate use is. SpinningSpark 16:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I failed to convince you I wouldn't misuse rollback. I accept that the use of rollback as opposed to undo was a misuse of the tool. I was under the impression at that time I could use it synonymously to undo as I thought the original editor, PythonSwarm did the right thing the wrong way. I did not use it with the intent of revoking GA completely, nor to disagree that the article was not of that quality. I also hoped that my record thus far would show that I know how to use the rollback feature, albeit mostly using the huggle toolset as opposed to those built-in to the site.

I'm also assuming that the "I do not accept that usage of rollback was inappropriate as reverting the edit in some other way would have lead to the same outcome." is the proverbial straw that tipped you to revoke rollback, for which I am sorry. My intent for this was not me saying I deny what's listed at WP:ROLL but that in my own methodology if I had manually made the edit and put "Removing topicon due to GA process being followed incorrectly" it would have lead to the same situation we're in now, albeit with the issues I've caused limited to removing the topicon as opposed to that and misusing rollback.

With all this being said, if you want me to sit here and think about what I've done then I'm happy to wait a few days or weeks until you think I've learned the difference between appropriate and inappropriate use of Rollback. Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to restore the privilege this morning on the basis of your reply, but a quick check of your editing history shows a habitual use of rollback when an explanation is required;

This edit was malformed but appears to be good faith. So did you revert it because it was malformed, or because you would remove that content anyway? The editor needs to know whether they can fix the problem or should not write anything.
[1] looks like a good faith, and possibly helpful, addition to external links.
[2] Addition of birth and death dates to the first sentence of the lead is conventional, so no obvious reason why this was rolled back.
[3] The user changed a category to a more specific sub-category. Again, this is conventional and no obvious reason for the rollback.
A large number of similar category changes by the same user were also rolled back. There is even a template notice at Category:Exploitation films encouraging users to move articles out of the category to sub-categories.

That accounts for the vast majority of your rollbacks in the last few days, very few of which are unarguably legitimate use. I also have a suspicion that you are far too quick to revert IP editors. I think you need to get into the habit of always leaving edit summaries at least, and if not, opening a discussion. Ask for rollback returned after you have demonstrated by practice that you understand the need to explain your actions. SpinningSpark 08:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these reversions were performed using huggle, and I can explain why I reverted each of those edits and how they are not a misuse of rollback. I'm sure you have used the application before and I have no need to explain how it works.

This editor was reverted by another user as well, and they ended up being blocked from editing as this editor was disruptive in how it was added, and later edits seem to show this information was not needed for the article.
This linked to someone's blog site, and was a redundant edit as the pronunciation is in the lead. Additionally when viewing the site on mobile a malicious ad can appear.
The birthdate is in the infobox as well as in the first section after the lead. Having three birthdates in this manner seemed redundant, especially due to the early life section.
Now this one I have less confidence in, as at the time when I did a little digging I had found something in their editing pattern which struck me as being disruptive, and the subsequent reversions of this same user are due to my huggle config placing more of their edits in the queue for me to look at.

As to reverting IP editors, my eye is drawn to ipv6 editors as I have seen lots of vandalism coming from such editors, but I can assure you that for every rollback I performed, there were ten-fold as many where I didn't rollback, whether because I thought it was a good edit, or it was too close to call.

It's very possible that my use of rollback has been shaped over time and become malformed. To try and analogise it, I've been given a few basic rules and left to do my job, and only now when someone has come to check on me is it apparent I have extrapolated in a grossly inappropriate way and become blind to my own mistakes.

If you have the time, I'd like to invite you onto the IRC and have a one-to-one discussion in IM format so I can (more efficiently) show that I have good intentions, albeit going around the apparently wrong way Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on #wikipedia-en now if you want to talk there. SpinningSpark 09:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

plz dont change the cast name of according to matthew film Shelinazara (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

so how can i add my name on there! am also cast of that film Shelinazara (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

dont do changes on according to matthew film! when you change then you also do vandalism! Shelinazara (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNTALK

May I inquire as to why you are archiving people's talk pages, as you did here? Did they make a request somewhere? Praxidicae (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxidicae the Template:archiveme was placed on the page and I've been going through the backlogs archiving talk-pages that are tagged as such. I have recently made some edits to User talk:Newyorkadam deleting newsletters as a courtesy to also try and cut down the size of the talk page. I thought that this type of action was allowed as housekeeping, though I'm stopping for now as it probably is not. Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related discussion here, specifically Primefac's comments. Praxidicae (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm sorry I've caused some trouble then. In that case Praxidicae would you like me to go and revert all my edits related to the template thus far? (unless it was added by the user themselves) Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend in general not doing this - this isn't a meaningful maintenance area and the project is better served by fixing the millions of mainspace problems instead of productive editors (even if long since gone) talk pages. Praxidicae (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoming

Heya.

Seems your gnomish-/housekeeping edits are starting to get some attention.

Looking at your edits myself, I'd agree that you lack the experience to make some of the decisions you are making, and indeed some of it looks like doing things for the sake of doing things.

It's good that you're eager and keen to do things, but I would take a step back from anything maintainence-focused right now, and focus on content space for a while.

Cheers, -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 09:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a big sticky note on the display with a "No. Cleanup.". I'll focus my efforts back on articles and drafts. I'll live to gnome another day. Thanks Alfie. Thepenguin9 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Silver Logo

Hi! I saw the request on your user page about the Deep Silver logo, and I can't seem to replicate your issue. I've looked at the logo size in view mode, source editing mode ("Show Preview"), and visual editor - It appears the same size every time for me. If you could elaborate on your issue, I would be happy to help. In the meantime, if you still have the issue, try using the "| logo_size = " parameter in the Company Infobox. AviationFreak💬 02:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]