From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:JPyG)


The Dumbarton Rail Bridge in San Francisco Bay, July 2021. Canon EOS 650D. 1/125, ISO 100, f/6.3



Where is Kate revisions

FYI, see User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 10#Redirecting Where is Kate? to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health and User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15#Recreation of Where is Kate? for some of the side discussions that went on around that. My impression was that there was a strong sense among some that BLP expected, if not demanded, the revisions be hidden. I didn't agree with that consensus, but my recreation of a redirect after deletion was not intended to circumvent it. Jclemens ( talk) 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp× g 🗯️ 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades. Jclemens ( talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Err, sorry: in other words, I don't care and have no objections from a BLP perspective. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 02:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday? Svampesky ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp× g 🗯️ 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?) Svampesky ( talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @ Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp× g 🗯️ 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked. Svampesky ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community. Svampesky ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp× g 🗯️ 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sup. Kindly redelete. This was not a bizarre reason. Discussion is clear. Judged by the community as non-compliant material under the BLP policy. It's a discrete, codified, DELREASON. History deleted per consensus around a BLP concern -- administrators are obligated to treat it as bad material, not for public access. That's the consensus: material is inappropriate for public viewing on this website. It's available for public viewing with two additional clicks now. It's not like it was deleted for lack of notability; it was wholly redacted out of the encyclopedia, ejected from the entire site as actively bad. There's a hierarchy of values, and respecting such a consensus in particular takes precedences over making it easier to write Signpost article. No biggie so far but this can't hinge on someone telling you they're done with their thing. I'm emotionally detached from this topic, but had to tell you this, however, as these principles are good. Respectfully — Alalch E. 00:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support/Delete per above and the overwhelming community consensus that the article should be deleted. The article is not necessary for me to write the report, as it will focus on the discussions and the policy concerns that were raised. Discussing the content of the article, if it was not addressed in the various discussions, would also seem like exploiting a loophole against the community. Svampesky ( talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this one. When I was reading the article at the time, I was only aware of the AfD and RM. I didn't know about the additional complexities and layers involved with the other discussions. Therefore, I believe it is best for me to slowly work on this one, as I need to acquire more policy knowledge to write it effectively. I'm not too invested in getting this particular deletion report published as soon as possible, so gradually writing it is probably best. Svampesky ( talk) 02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, I said if anyone gave enough of a damn to ask, I'd be happy to re-delete it, so there is no need to convince me; back down the toilet it goes. jp× g 🗯️ 03:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, the stupid thing is buried again, this time with some actual indication that consensus exists and a link to where it can be found. If something is really that toxic, I think it really ought to be marked in some way, not just left for people to stumble across. Exemplis grata: jp× g 🗯️ 03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I missed this, sorry. What I mean is that individual admins are allowed to send the contents of deleted pages to whoever at their discretion (ofc unless it is some kind of snuff-film thing or whatever) -- the thing Legal dislikes is the idea of people who haven't passed a community confirmation process being given the idea to themselves go willy-nilly through deleted page histories unattended. jp× g 🗯️ 03:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

User:JPxG/index

Please see my edit to User:JPxG/index and figure out how to get SDZeroBot not to reinsert the incorrect table opening line, which is not needed because the following line actually opens the table. Same issue with User talk:JPxG/index. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

The signpost trump image

For what it's worth, your redrawing of the image wouldn't be a speedy if uploaded here instead of Commons, though it probably wouldn't get kept at FFD. It is unquestionably fair-use (in the sense of being allowable under US law, not in the sense of it not being allowable on WMF sites) and has a stronger case for that if hosted here instead of at Commons. — Cryptic 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For me it is just an issue of exhaustion more than anything else: there are hundreds of Signpost articles with illustrations on Commons, and there are so many arbitrary differences (either in the actual policy or in house interpretations of what are nominally supposed to be identical policies) that it's basically worthless to try to beat back the tide. Sometimes it is a license being on the image description page but not in the right template field, sometimes it is a person batch-nominating 100 images for no apparent reason, sometimes it is a vandal smashing their keyboard: the only constant is that it consumes a gigantic amount of time because I have to go personally respond to it every time. Presumably you are enforcing the Commons policies evenly and in line with consensus there -- I just find said policy/consensus to be unreasonably difficult and inconsistent. jp× g 🗯️ 13:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's interesting

[1] The remover is right, the article [2] does seem to be gone, and I can't get to it through archives. Now I'm curious why, as I remember, it wasn't that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Tech News: 2024-30

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of usernames that need to be dealt with

see html note jp× g 🗯️ 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

your block of user:178.138.193.125

Please remove IP's talk page access after [6], [7] and [8] Meters ( talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And [9] Meters ( talk) 07:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Epic hrrmery", as they say. Oh well. Rack 'em! jp× g 🗯️ 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Glad to see everything removed from view. Meters ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:10x

Template:10x has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Copy editing the Signpost

Hello! I was wondering if I could become a copy editor for the Signpost, as I want to contribute in some way, but I’m not very skilled at writing. Thanks! Shadestar474 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Shadestar474: I would appreciate this. Could you review Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna and copyedit it? I'm unsure whether words should be italicised or placed in single quotation marks. I've tried my best! Svampesky ( talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
[10] was a very kind comment of you to leave. The project as a whole can benefit if we all show mutual understanding and compassion towards one another. I'm also learning of WP:BITE - so, in general, thank you for setting a great example for how we all should act in our regular interactions on here (and in real life too). That Coptic Guyping me! ( talk) ( contribs) 15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The check on line 6:

(window.location.href.indexOf( "Special:Contributions/" ) >= 0 ) || (window.location.href.indexOf( "Special%3AContributions" ) >= 0 )

won't work on wikis with localized "Special:Contributions". For example: de:Spezial:Beiträge and ru:Служебная:Вклад. An equivalent check without locale dependency is:

(mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === -1) && (mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName') === 'Contributions')

See mw:mw.config for reference documentation. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Essay column in The Signpost

I saw this Help:Drawing attention to new pages. I propose featuring newly published essays in the essay column to draw attention to them. These essays can vary in tone, including serious and humorous ones. The column will be a good place for readers to check on if there's any new essays, discuss and improve them. Svampesky ( talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:JPyG)


The Dumbarton Rail Bridge in San Francisco Bay, July 2021. Canon EOS 650D. 1/125, ISO 100, f/6.3



Where is Kate revisions

FYI, see User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 10#Redirecting Where is Kate? to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health and User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15#Recreation of Where is Kate? for some of the side discussions that went on around that. My impression was that there was a strong sense among some that BLP expected, if not demanded, the revisions be hidden. I didn't agree with that consensus, but my recreation of a redirect after deletion was not intended to circumvent it. Jclemens ( talk) 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp× g 🗯️ 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades. Jclemens ( talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Err, sorry: in other words, I don't care and have no objections from a BLP perspective. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 02:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday? Svampesky ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp× g 🗯️ 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?) Svampesky ( talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @ Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp× g 🗯️ 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked. Svampesky ( talk) 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community. Svampesky ( talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp× g 🗯️ 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sup. Kindly redelete. This was not a bizarre reason. Discussion is clear. Judged by the community as non-compliant material under the BLP policy. It's a discrete, codified, DELREASON. History deleted per consensus around a BLP concern -- administrators are obligated to treat it as bad material, not for public access. That's the consensus: material is inappropriate for public viewing on this website. It's available for public viewing with two additional clicks now. It's not like it was deleted for lack of notability; it was wholly redacted out of the encyclopedia, ejected from the entire site as actively bad. There's a hierarchy of values, and respecting such a consensus in particular takes precedences over making it easier to write Signpost article. No biggie so far but this can't hinge on someone telling you they're done with their thing. I'm emotionally detached from this topic, but had to tell you this, however, as these principles are good. Respectfully — Alalch E. 00:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support/Delete per above and the overwhelming community consensus that the article should be deleted. The article is not necessary for me to write the report, as it will focus on the discussions and the policy concerns that were raised. Discussing the content of the article, if it was not addressed in the various discussions, would also seem like exploiting a loophole against the community. Svampesky ( talk) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Additionally, I may have bitten off more than I can chew with this one. When I was reading the article at the time, I was only aware of the AfD and RM. I didn't know about the additional complexities and layers involved with the other discussions. Therefore, I believe it is best for me to slowly work on this one, as I need to acquire more policy knowledge to write it effectively. I'm not too invested in getting this particular deletion report published as soon as possible, so gradually writing it is probably best. Svampesky ( talk) 02:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, I said if anyone gave enough of a damn to ask, I'd be happy to re-delete it, so there is no need to convince me; back down the toilet it goes. jp× g 🗯️ 03:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Okay, the stupid thing is buried again, this time with some actual indication that consensus exists and a link to where it can be found. If something is really that toxic, I think it really ought to be marked in some way, not just left for people to stumble across. Exemplis grata: jp× g 🗯️ 03:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I missed this, sorry. What I mean is that individual admins are allowed to send the contents of deleted pages to whoever at their discretion (ofc unless it is some kind of snuff-film thing or whatever) -- the thing Legal dislikes is the idea of people who haven't passed a community confirmation process being given the idea to themselves go willy-nilly through deleted page histories unattended. jp× g 🗯️ 03:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

User:JPxG/index

Please see my edit to User:JPxG/index and figure out how to get SDZeroBot not to reinsert the incorrect table opening line, which is not needed because the following line actually opens the table. Same issue with User talk:JPxG/index. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

The signpost trump image

For what it's worth, your redrawing of the image wouldn't be a speedy if uploaded here instead of Commons, though it probably wouldn't get kept at FFD. It is unquestionably fair-use (in the sense of being allowable under US law, not in the sense of it not being allowable on WMF sites) and has a stronger case for that if hosted here instead of at Commons. — Cryptic 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For me it is just an issue of exhaustion more than anything else: there are hundreds of Signpost articles with illustrations on Commons, and there are so many arbitrary differences (either in the actual policy or in house interpretations of what are nominally supposed to be identical policies) that it's basically worthless to try to beat back the tide. Sometimes it is a license being on the image description page but not in the right template field, sometimes it is a person batch-nominating 100 images for no apparent reason, sometimes it is a vandal smashing their keyboard: the only constant is that it consumes a gigantic amount of time because I have to go personally respond to it every time. Presumably you are enforcing the Commons policies evenly and in line with consensus there -- I just find said policy/consensus to be unreasonably difficult and inconsistent. jp× g 🗯️ 13:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's interesting

[1] The remover is right, the article [2] does seem to be gone, and I can't get to it through archives. Now I'm curious why, as I remember, it wasn't that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Tech News: 2024-30

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of usernames that need to be dealt with

see html note jp× g 🗯️ 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

your block of user:178.138.193.125

Please remove IP's talk page access after [6], [7] and [8] Meters ( talk) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And [9] Meters ( talk) 07:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
"Epic hrrmery", as they say. Oh well. Rack 'em! jp× g 🗯️ 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Glad to see everything removed from view. Meters ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:10x

Template:10x has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 08:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Copy editing the Signpost

Hello! I was wondering if I could become a copy editor for the Signpost, as I want to contribute in some way, but I’m not very skilled at writing. Thanks! Shadestar474 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Shadestar474: I would appreciate this. Could you review Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna and copyedit it? I'm unsure whether words should be italicised or placed in single quotation marks. I've tried my best! Svampesky ( talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
[10] was a very kind comment of you to leave. The project as a whole can benefit if we all show mutual understanding and compassion towards one another. I'm also learning of WP:BITE - so, in general, thank you for setting a great example for how we all should act in our regular interactions on here (and in real life too). That Coptic Guyping me! ( talk) ( contribs) 15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The check on line 6:

(window.location.href.indexOf( "Special:Contributions/" ) >= 0 ) || (window.location.href.indexOf( "Special%3AContributions" ) >= 0 )

won't work on wikis with localized "Special:Contributions". For example: de:Spezial:Beiträge and ru:Служебная:Вклад. An equivalent check without locale dependency is:

(mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === -1) && (mw.config.get('wgCanonicalSpecialPageName') === 'Contributions')

See mw:mw.config for reference documentation. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Essay column in The Signpost

I saw this Help:Drawing attention to new pages. I propose featuring newly published essays in the essay column to draw attention to them. These essays can vary in tone, including serious and humorous ones. The column will be a good place for readers to check on if there's any new essays, discuss and improve them. Svampesky ( talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook