This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
You are doing biased roll backs by rolling back my four word sentence when there were a large number of not referenced sentences and paragraphs on that page and my sentence was fairly common knowledge not requiring a reference but factual and important to understanding the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.132 ( talk • contribs)
Women are generally excluded.(emphasis mine). I was on a phone and multi-tasking - the extra word slipped my mind.
Hi there. I am disappointed that you removed my single sentence addition to your scholarly article regarding the crash that took the lives of 4 young folks, including 3 classic rockers. I certainly was not in any way attempting to alter anything you said in your well researched essay. My only goal was to point out that the events that occurred that evening have been told directly to the camera lens by the very folks who were touring with Holly at the time. I have studiously followed this matter for decades, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years, coinciding with Dion revising his story, possibly to make his survival seem more dramatic. As I am not schooled in the method of adding citations, (yes I do respect the rules of Wikipedia, and as I said, I am not questioning your research), I humbly ask that you, as the author of the article, consider adding something similar to what I posted, but in your own, very capable words. I ask this because it does seem unfair that Dion, being one of the last survivors of the events of that evening, is now being given equal veracity. Tommy Allsup and Waylon Jennings are no longer around to state the facts or rebut Dion's revisions. That is why I think all who read your article would benefit from hearing from them on video. I know from previous experience that Wikipedia does not allow the posting of URL links to external video sources. Sincerely, and with respect, D. Wiese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.8.2 ( talk • contribs)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader, not sure how you want to cite the page updates. The corporate website is
https://ccorpusa.com/. Can the page please be reverted back? This has been really frustrating. Just trying to delete all the old info and update. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.93.162.191 (
talk •
contribs)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader, this post portrays the dynamic fluid pressure at the free surface as (density*gravity*wave amplitude), this I believe to be untrue. If you check
/info/en/?search=Dynamic_pressure#:~:text=Dynamic%20pressure%20is%20the%20kinetic,for%20a%20fluid%20in%20motion. The dynamic pressure is in it's simplest form given as an expression of the kinetic energy in a moving particle. (1/2*mass*velocity^2). What I believe the original author to be describing is the static fluid pressure and writing it as dynamic. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.152.197.216 (
talk •
contribs) 15:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
June 11, 2020
Hi ProcratinatingReader thank you for your due diligence on Sharpe James Bio.
My concerns are simply with quoting the ruling of the court and not speculative
newspaper articles or personal opinions as currently posed. I am willing to forward\
actual court ruling data and newspaper article by Robert Braun of the Star Ledger who
was assigned to cover James trial everyday. Also the ruling of the Supreme Court
and Third Circuit Court of Appeals which James appealed to. The current Conviction
on four counts of fraud is completely false. Court rulings not newspaper articles
before Sentencing Hearing on 7/29/08. Again Thank you. If an email address is available
I will do so forthwith. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John Sharpe James (
talk •
contribs)
Request granted after a cursory review of your recent contributions. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and consider doing some testing in the sandbox to familiarize yourself briefly. Best, Spencer T• C 17:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! Im Toxicpen456! I understand and apologise for not sharing any source and I will do that next time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicpen456 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, there! I was the one who made the edit to the Wikipedia article about Cupid (moon). This is the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9rlzLnOOI.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Hillelfrei talk 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
Why aren't you letting that bit about Kingsley get on? He is notable, and it's important that we acknowledge that shite people went to our schools too Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do I need a citation when it's a matter of public record, see this article for proof - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17399676 Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, can you add it, seeing as that's a valid citation and a valid opinion on him? You could take out "may he rot in hell", as that constitutes an opinion, but the rest surely constitutes fact Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll keep them in mind in future. I'm new to this. AntiFa Pride ( talk) 14:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Susamd29. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A vandalism warning for simply adding uncited but perfectly plausible statements is unwarranted and off-putting. It fails to assume good faith. It also bites a newcomer. Please be more careful in future with warnings, and only use vandalism warnings where there is reason to believe there is ill-intent present. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.
Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:
I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page, and I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your message. You are kind because on the Slovak Wikipedia this adjustment would have been deleted a long time ago, even if it is justified - only because of the sources. I want to ask if the source can also be articles in Slovak, I have seen them on other en Wiki pages, but I'm not sure if it's right. Well thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.102.238 ( talk • contribs)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
List of largest Eastern Orthodox church buildings.
Nyook
✉ 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for changing your name. I see you a lot in my watchlist and truthfully, the spelling of the old name kinda bugged me. Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with User:196.190.154.53 at AIV. I was actually just about to edit their name in, and I saw yours there, and I thought to myself, "Thank you so much." Cheers. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Proc, re the conversation we had off-wiki last night about warning templates, I thought you may be interested in [ talk discussion I've opened]. It may be one that sits better at village pump, but will wait to see what input is given. Cheers, Darren-M talk 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you removed it, but it was an excellent summary of the position Arbcom are in these cases. Thanks! —— Serial # 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Going off of your idea here, I've created Template:Beginner version. How does it look? The visual design could probably be improved, and there are some questions to be answered about implementation (e.g. where should it be placed relative to other templates?). Some editors might have concerns about the general idea of it, given the reception I got here. But hopefully it'll be possible to work through all that if we're patient. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Toshihiko Masuda with {{ prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, You'r right about the source problem, but its not a 'living person', he died 200 years ago.
I haven't revdel'd the revision here as it doesn't look like a blatant copyright violation as required by WP:CRD; all the quotes were sourced and by the look of it back to the original sources the museum used. I think a word with the user who added it to suggest that they cut down on the amount of direct quotation they use would be useful.
Thanks and please keep up the good work in spotting copyvios. Nthep ( talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Lych-gates mark the division between consecrated and unconsecrated ground. It was here, in this liminal space, that funeral-bearers stopped with their load. In some parts of Devon and Cornwall, the gates were known as “trim-trams” - a term which, it has been suggested, refers to a spot where the funeral train (tram) was “trimmed” or brought into the proper order “so as to be in a state of preparation for the officiating minister, on his coming forth to meet them there.”The book itself only contains the final, short quote part of this statement, regarding "state of preparation". The rest is written by mun.ca, perhaps based on content in the book, but it's certainly in their own words (none of it appears to be present in the book, e.g. "liminal space" has no results). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my question at WP:ANI seriously.
I think you have figured out the identity of the controversial individual.
On June 22nd, NBC published a long and interesting article by Asian-American journalist Kimmy Yan, that includes the phrase "...a history of Asian women being judged for whom they marry", that covers this individual, in detail.
If you google it, and read it, I'd welcome your opinion on whether you thought it was appropriate to use this reference in other articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I was involved in the discussion and didn’t want to intervene in administrative procedures. There was some back-and-forth messing with the closed block, which began with these two edits: [1] [2], and the result still stands.
Afterwards, there were some editors’ comments removed by others involved in the discussions, so if you wanted to look at that too . . . Thanks. Michael Z. 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- MrX 🖋 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a thought for the future, if you're going to nominate something for copyright violations, it makes no sense to then remove that copyvio and leave nothing. If there's content worth saving, remove the CV and add a {{ revdel}} request. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 00:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, ProcrastinatingReader. I think it's fair to say that your latest reply to LA at BLPN is a bit verbose. You kind of state your whole case again, bringing multiple arguments that you've already given before and that LA hasn't really addressed. For conciseness, that is best left out - it's not like you'll change their mind that way. If you must, take only your very best argument and simply ask them for a response to that one argument.
Also, while I kind of get where you're coming from, bringing your opponent's behaviour into a content discussion does not lead to anything good. While you say that you AGF, I question if you're trying to be honest here
does sort of imply bad faith on their part, and about edit warring I'll note that they've not reinstated the suspect's name after I removed it yesterday, see
Special:history/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: in fact, they've further removed it.
I hope this advice is maybe somewhat helpful to you. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 02:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Reimer, you told the now-defunct sock Wiki2008Time "Feel free to find reliable sources that give her significant coverage and we can happily satisfy policies and keep it". I have since found sources and was wondering if you felt like returning to this AfD to take a look at such sources and to see if you still feel confindant in your delete !vote.
Best, Samsmachado ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You removed content which i added at Trump v. Vance with the words "rm excessive quotations and further refbombing". I added this content in response to an earlier content edit which was removed with the words "far too early to call it landmark, and one source is not sufficient". Two questions in this context: 1. What is refbombing? 2. What is the appropriate number of sources for the status landmark court decision? -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, PC! Let's not make decisions on IRC. —valereee ( talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I am reimplementing a moratorium on the topic of renaming to "Murder of George Floyd"hence I didn't think the clarification was required for my update in Special:Diff/967529338 but I did want to double check I wasn't misreading GN's statement, hence I requested a confirmation. Sorry GeneralNotability, but could you clarify again onwiki? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Never married again" is unsourced, not mentioned in source attributed to that entry. I can post sources, but until then, leave this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyJ ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want to do a 1400 page big AWB run it should be possible to handle most of them through User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster by making {{ Archive box collapsible}} a wrapper of {{ Archives}}. Just a suggestion though, I haven't actually taken an in depth look at implementation here. -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you edited under other accounts? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the template update in the climate pages! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This was interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the new knowledge. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You added {{Undisclosed paid|date=July 2020}} to CuriosityStream. Why did you do this, under what evidence? I made the last edit to add "including Nebula" and I was not paid - this promotion has been going going on for awhile and is probably the most well know partnership and I felt should be added to the article as is relevant. If you added that tag just because of my edit please remove. I added source from 1st party, but I could add more sources if that is what you want, but most sources are of people promoting the partnership so probably not good to add. -- Lefton4ya ( talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Would you please clarify how a RAT can steal someone’s online password? Does it involve hanging a little camera around the animal’s neck? Has this been done, in the past? catsmoke ( talk) 03:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! Salvio 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you for creating automatic image dimensions for DYK image hooks. I have been building prep sets at DYK for many years and I can attest that this is a wonderful improvement that eliminates all the guesswork. Thanks for your expertise! Yoninah ( talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, good luck with the bot trial. I noticed your bot ran into a problem at 2nd Streamy Awards. If you have a lot of those that cause you problems, you may want to skip anything with "Awards" in its name. Those pages should really be using {{ Infobox award}}. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
|first_aired=
above, it's implicitly given as the same year, but the year was omitted. Bot skipped it correctly. I don't think it'd result in false positives to make an inference here, but probably not worth the effort for the (hopefully) minority of templates that do this.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:
Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
The purpose of the amendment was to match the scope of the existing 1RR remedy and the discretionary sanctions remedy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see this . Just like the edit I linked, I do not agree with your close. The consensus was for an actual merge, not for Template:Archive banner to become a wrapper of Template:Archives. Please either re-close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Archive banner to reflect the consensus as so or relist the discussion. Otherwise, I may have to take the discussion to WP:DRV. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Statue of Edward Colston. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader
Thank you for creating Lewis Goodall.
User:Synoman Barris, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Meets WP: JOURNALIST, otherwise good work.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Synoman Barris}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi guy what's up,
I just have extended the Wikiproject football by adding Greek task force in it. I will add a Greek flag for Greek football task force and vow not to ruin it. I just wanna edit the template of the project Template:Wikiproject football in order to do I require access to edits. Plz do grant me the access.
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader
Why are you moving other editor's user pages and tagging them for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Bot's starting to mess up. See [3] and other recent edits. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym Update: Bot has updated all it can, I believe. Still, just under 5,000 pages remain in
Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates. At a spotcheck of 25, these range from formatting issues (eg |last_aired=
using {{
start date}}), to both start and end date being in the same param (separated by a dash), to cases where first_aired omits the year, to a host of less common issues like
Fun Factory (TV series).
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
|film_start=
and |film_end=
. Would you want me to add logic to check these usages as well? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
| first_aired = October 23, 1991 <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />June 10, 1992 <small>(Japan)</small><br />July 17, 1992 <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
| first_aired = {{start date|1991|10|23}} <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />{{start date|1992|6|10}} <small>(Japan)</small><br />{{start date|1992|7|17}} <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
A motion was posted 8 September regarding the clarification request you are a party to. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Abortion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- See section "Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems" CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. In these edits, procbot seems determined to edit my sandbox. Sandboxes are used to try things out and I'm not currently interested in experimenting with the start-date and end-date templates. These bot edits were harmless (but annoying) - my concern is that by tampering with my experiments, you're just creating work for me if I'm ever doing anything interesting or time-consuming. I've had the nobots template in place for quite a while now, so I assume your bot is ignoring it. Is it possible/sensible to stop the bot attacking all sandboxes (at least pages with that name perhaps) or do you have an exclusion list that allows specific pages to be left alone? A better solution IMHO would be to stop disrespecting the nobots template but you may have reasons for disregarding it. Thanks :) -- Northernhenge ( talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
For better or worse, it's a tragedy of the commons situation: individuals think their preferred edit notice is of key importance, but scale that up to everyone, and editors just ignore the resulting ubiquitous messages. On the flip side, it's probably too late to do anything about the banner blindness effect with Wikipedia's current edit notices anyway, so it's generally not worth getting into protracted discussions about it. isaacl ( talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your email and kind words! Getting too old to worry about it and want to spend what time I have left editing like I've been doing. Never had a problem using the tools through those who have them. Admins are a very helpful bunch! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Re Special:Diff/980734615 and Special:Diff/980734656: it's the presence of {{ documentation}} that provides the automatic protection icon on most templates, not whether or not they're subpages. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Template:Editnotices/Page/User talk:Dreamy Jazz Bot is deliberately placed there because its to ensure new editors don't post there. It also means I get the "You have a new message" yellow button thing which catches my attention quicker than my watchlist. The bot's talk page is a redirect to my talk page. It was moved (as per the BRFA approves) to the editnotice place for my talk page. Is there someway to stop the bot from moving the page in the future? I ask this because the bot is not exclusion compliant according to the BRFA. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
|redirect=yes
should be set. Hope this helps.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
thanks for going the extra mile by letting me know about the redirect parameter and that the editnotice wasn't in the right place to begin with. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit: I presume you meant to link to the user's page, and not a template? isaacl ( talk) 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement has been closed and archived. The archived clarification request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On 6 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Alton Manning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1998 inquest found that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful, and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have yet been filed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Alton Manning. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Killing of Alton Manning), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Edward Colston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I understand your concerns about {{ infobox settlement}}; some of the wrappers trim down a lot of the unnecessary "baggage" that is standard across a group of pages (I did a subst-job for Template:Infobox Finnish municipality which ended up introducing on average about +1k on every page, just because of the hard-coded values the wrapper employed). It might not be easy, but it's probably a good time to be thinking about sub-templates that can store these common values and save a little space in articles.
I'm bringing this up because of your main concern about updates; if these sorts of changes can be enacted, I am more than happy to lend my bot to removing any redundant or unnecessary parameters that can be automatically supplied by IB settlement. If you want to discuss it further let me know, but I likely won't involve myself in any overhaul except for in a technical or supervisory capacity. Primefac ( talk) 03:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|government_blank1_title=
values). There may be others, too. I think it's quite a bad idea to expose this stuff to local articles all the time. Imagine if one was creating a Finnish infobox today, what's the odds that those fields would be correctly filled. How about an Israeli place vis-a-vis the transcription ones?Still, I also think it's a bad idea to have per-location wrappers to hide it behind. Maybe a good way to hide it would be to have this hidden in a data template, which is defaulted to by IS based on the |subdivision_name=
value to fetch default values for all of these fields. I'm not too sure on the neatest technical implementation yet, but I think this would work? With the Finnish substitution the value of that param is currently a flag, but that's just a difference in an extra bot step. Your thoughts on achieving this technically?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|government_blank1_title=
in the same way (barring blatantly-incorrect uses), then instead of calling that parameter from the article the template itself would call a subpage based on the country/subdivision/etc. Area and demographics could in theory be stored as a subtemplate (again, no need to have dozens of articles calling {{
Data Finland municipality}} if the template itself can do it automatically.|population=
for every potential use). Things like |subdivision_name=
could potentially be hard-coded, since every city in Japan will use |subdivision_name=Japan
so the #switch will be much smaller.
Primefac (
talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|governor=
or |mayor=
rather than |leader_title5=
(which is less clear imo) but still not sure how to properly do a resolver for this on a per-country/locale/governance-type level. (the simple answer to this would probably be "use a wrapper!" but I digress)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Regarding the close at Reference search tools talk page templates discussion at TfD to merge, I sure hope the search options don't get dumbed-down, where some may be omitted because they all may not look pretty crammed within the talk header template. Time will tell. If this were to occur, it would be a failure of form over function. North America 1000 03:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Skdb just following up on this, is implementing the TfD something you planned to do or is it up for grabs at holding? Is the edit in sandbox complete? If so, I presume the only thing missing is a bot run to remove duplicates at the same time? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're not going to allow me to reply to your pointed comment about me in a TfD close, please remove it from that close and put it on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Procrastinating Reader,
What was the basis for your selection of edit notices to delete? I didn't see that any were actually tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the incident you were referring to
here, but I agree that users should not be sanctioned for behavior that occurred prior to them being aware of discretionary sanctions. The section of
WP:AC/DS on page-level sanctions does specify this explicitly: Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction: The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict...
. Is it the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts portion you felt was insufficiently specific?
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 20:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Template:Welcome-personal, am I correct that your intent in the close is to have {{ Welcome cookie}} remove the TotD message then have {{ Welcome-personal}} redirect there? Or vice-versa? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Nthep ( talk) 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
treats -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020_October 24#Template:Licht, which does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes "[the navbox
), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}
] contains all of the links in the nominated template""there is not a single article using
). TfD is not a vote.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
{{Licht}}
which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}
"
Count me in for Delete, - I just had no time. There's not a single article which has the Licht template alone, and in the larger template, it's the very top. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, your recent BRFA ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 3) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,
I didn't really see a way for me to comment on this proposal. I also don't understand what it does that helps fill up categories. Would this also help with CSD G6s and G8s? These are mostly uncontroversial or dated maintenance pages and categories that are tagged for deletion but do not show up in CSD categories. It's been brought up several times at WP:VPT and we've been told that it's not a priority. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +5 months}} < {{#time: U}})and({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months}} > {{#time: U}})|{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}]]}}}}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ProcrastinatingReader. Thank you. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You helpfully noted in the IRANPOL sanctions page that user notifications didn't have to be logged any more. There is still a small problem in that the edit filter doesn't set the tag properly in the history, as I described here. Do you happen to know if any edit filter work was done to enable the current system for notifying? It looks like it has a bug. It *should* be setting the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert' in the edit history of the person's talk page, but is not doing so. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Gs/alert|iranpol}}
(or just {{
Gs/alert|irp}}
- same thing) it should log as expected. The old templates are tagged with "don't use this anymore" notices, but to avoid confusion I sent them all
to TFD last week.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the block, though ill-judged on my part, was not for lack of indents or indenting incorrectly. The block was for refusing to even try to learn how to correctly indent, which had become very disruptive on the incredibly high-traffic talk page involved. I shouldn’t have blocked them; while I wasn’t in any content disputes with them, I was heavily editing the same talk page, and I should have asked someone else. When my lapse in judgement was brought to my attention my immediate reaction was, “That’s fair.” [4] They did eventually pay attention and are consistently making good-faith efforts to format replies correctly. Yay progress! :D —valereee ( talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Valereee: I came here to talk to ProcrastinatingReader who enacted a substitution on 6 Nov [5] but Template:Infobox Iceland municipality is still not deleted. Seeing the above discussion and that you are an admin, could you delete it? TerraCyprus ( talk) 23:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, could you please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Proud_Boys#Regarding_recently_closed_RfC and perhaps provide clarification to a RFC you closed? Thanks IHateAccounts ( talk) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
merit close
Thank you for quality articles such as Statue of Edward Colston, Killing of Alton Manning and Lewis Goodall, for your bot, for work as a template editor, for fighting vandalism, for "So merit was determined based on arguments for whether there should be a sidebar at all." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2475 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
perfect example of a bad compromise, and with BD's thoughts, I decided against it. The only alternative here was me letting it sit by until (most likely) Primefac closed it as no consensus in a few weeks. I imagine its transclusions will be nominated separately now; tedious, but seems the only way forward. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, PR,
This category has a warning not to delete it so could you link to the deletion discussion where it was determined it should be deleted? There is another category that you've tagged for deletion where it would be helpful for the admin looking at it to be able to read over the deletion discussion. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there any possibility completely delete my account including my discussions?
Regards,
Mirhasanov ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- —valereee ( talk) 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;
I noticed that when someone proposed an addition, you curtly replied, not incorrectly, "you need sources". I don't have any horse in the proposed addition, but just for a lark, wouldn't it be interesting to actually help users like this by going and actually, yourself, finding sources that undoubtedly exist?
I have lots of take-aways to learn from our interactions. If I could leave you with any moral at the end of the story, it would be that you would be far more effective if you had more insight into the process of looking for sources as part of a collaborative process, rather than sitting back and thumbs-downing the hard work of others as my (admittedly VERY cursory) skim of your editing history suggests.
It's easy to sit back and say "you need sourcing". But if you think the addition merits inclusion, maybe invest the time to find the sourcing yourself and pull your own weight. Alternatively, if you don't think the addition merits inclusion, then maybe you should just "person up" (aka "man up") and admit the suggestion sucks.
But of course, this is a learning experience for us all, and I will certainly adapt in the future in response to the feedback I've received. Feoffer ( talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
but I don't see why this fact (the appointing president) matters here); although (per my correction) I'd misunderstood what they were getting at. There's a lot of proposed changes on this wiki, and it's usually faster for someone who's already done the research, has the sources and is passionate about the change to go the extra step of improving it, verses me doing the digging from scratch.
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
A cupcake of gratitude for your efforts, including your patience and taking those right moments to breathe, regarding Emily W. Murphy. Thank you for your ongoing, valuable contributions to Wikipedia, even if it can be challenging sometimes to keep it up! Missvain ( talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
Category:Obsolete Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page at Emily Webster got nearly 1000 views yesterday. Talk:Joe Biden only had 500 lol. —valereee ( talk) 17:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done, seems to have gone pretty smoothly :) Enterprisey ( talk!) 09:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Procrastinating Reader, I really appreciated your initiation of the deletion discussion for Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment... those things have always bothered me because of the points you made and by filling up the talk pages even when they're 5–10 years old. I see that the admin who closed it said "Any discussion regarding converting the template into something else can be had elsewhere" – do you have any plans to start such a conversation? Although I'm not sure where it would talk place... Best - Aza24 ( talk) 07:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
One again I must ask you to reconsider a TfD close; I do not believe that a correct weighing of the comments on Template:Composer sidebar woudl result in "no consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014), has been archived. You can view the permalink for the clarification request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Thinking about a radical reduction of talk page banners. Inviting you since I know you've had an interest in talk page banners. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, ProcrastinatingReader,
I'm back again. This category typically contains between 4,000 and 5,000 drafts and it is now at about 3,000 pages. Could you do whatever it is that you do that fills it back up? Is it something that you could teach me to do so I could do it every 2 weeks or so and then I don't have to bother you? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi PR. At Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, the {{ map requested}} box runs wider than all the other {{ tmbox}}-based templates. Do you have any ideas why it isn't wrapping at the same width as the other boxes? I was going to put in an edit request to fix it but I can't figure it out. Levivich harass/ hound 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
For some reason {{
gs/editnotice|covid}} gives the "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required.", but
Template:COVID19 GS editnotice clearly exists and as far as I can tell there's no reason passing covid
shouldn't trigger the appropriate warning on edit summaries. I'm still going to replace all of the current uses of the old GS notice, but I thought you should be aware (since I'm tired and not really up for picking apart your module).
Primefac (
talk) 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You were right. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor( discuss) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, would it be possible to change the format of page names at User:ProcBot/EW to use {{ la}} or similar (or {{ pagelinks}} if it does more than just articles). No worries if not, but thought it couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ghostbusters! [6] LOL ♟♙ ( talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit here, this removal is only allowable if the article Nicholas Alahverdian is deleted. While a validly formulated article about the deceased still exists, so do their entries in the Deaths pages. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 10:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi PR, thank you for keeping tabs on Pasdecomplot. In the last AN/I thread that lead to their latest sanctions, I noted their intentional distortion of sourcing to add inflammatory terminology, and within 24 hours of their being unblocked, they have done the same without updating any of the sourcing. Another large-scale revert immediately after unblocking does not bode well, and if this continues, a broadly construed topic ban in Buddhism and Tibet would be in order. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, thank you for fixing the socks properly, unlike the way I did it. I'm still rough around the edges when it comes to that. Could you help clean up Talk:2020 United States election protests as well? Its the exact same sock users. Thank you in advance, Albertaont ( talk) 22:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas ProcrastinatingReader |
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
You are doing biased roll backs by rolling back my four word sentence when there were a large number of not referenced sentences and paragraphs on that page and my sentence was fairly common knowledge not requiring a reference but factual and important to understanding the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.221.132 ( talk • contribs)
Women are generally excluded.(emphasis mine). I was on a phone and multi-tasking - the extra word slipped my mind.
Hi there. I am disappointed that you removed my single sentence addition to your scholarly article regarding the crash that took the lives of 4 young folks, including 3 classic rockers. I certainly was not in any way attempting to alter anything you said in your well researched essay. My only goal was to point out that the events that occurred that evening have been told directly to the camera lens by the very folks who were touring with Holly at the time. I have studiously followed this matter for decades, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years, coinciding with Dion revising his story, possibly to make his survival seem more dramatic. As I am not schooled in the method of adding citations, (yes I do respect the rules of Wikipedia, and as I said, I am not questioning your research), I humbly ask that you, as the author of the article, consider adding something similar to what I posted, but in your own, very capable words. I ask this because it does seem unfair that Dion, being one of the last survivors of the events of that evening, is now being given equal veracity. Tommy Allsup and Waylon Jennings are no longer around to state the facts or rebut Dion's revisions. That is why I think all who read your article would benefit from hearing from them on video. I know from previous experience that Wikipedia does not allow the posting of URL links to external video sources. Sincerely, and with respect, D. Wiese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.8.2 ( talk • contribs)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader, not sure how you want to cite the page updates. The corporate website is
https://ccorpusa.com/. Can the page please be reverted back? This has been really frustrating. Just trying to delete all the old info and update. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.93.162.191 (
talk •
contribs)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader, this post portrays the dynamic fluid pressure at the free surface as (density*gravity*wave amplitude), this I believe to be untrue. If you check
/info/en/?search=Dynamic_pressure#:~:text=Dynamic%20pressure%20is%20the%20kinetic,for%20a%20fluid%20in%20motion. The dynamic pressure is in it's simplest form given as an expression of the kinetic energy in a moving particle. (1/2*mass*velocity^2). What I believe the original author to be describing is the static fluid pressure and writing it as dynamic. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.152.197.216 (
talk •
contribs) 15:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
June 11, 2020
Hi ProcratinatingReader thank you for your due diligence on Sharpe James Bio.
My concerns are simply with quoting the ruling of the court and not speculative
newspaper articles or personal opinions as currently posed. I am willing to forward\
actual court ruling data and newspaper article by Robert Braun of the Star Ledger who
was assigned to cover James trial everyday. Also the ruling of the Supreme Court
and Third Circuit Court of Appeals which James appealed to. The current Conviction
on four counts of fraud is completely false. Court rulings not newspaper articles
before Sentencing Hearing on 7/29/08. Again Thank you. If an email address is available
I will do so forthwith. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
John Sharpe James (
talk •
contribs)
Request granted after a cursory review of your recent contributions. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and consider doing some testing in the sandbox to familiarize yourself briefly. Best, Spencer T• C 17:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! Im Toxicpen456! I understand and apologise for not sharing any source and I will do that next time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxicpen456 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, there! I was the one who made the edit to the Wikipedia article about Cupid (moon). This is the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9rlzLnOOI.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Hillelfrei talk 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
Why aren't you letting that bit about Kingsley get on? He is notable, and it's important that we acknowledge that shite people went to our schools too Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do I need a citation when it's a matter of public record, see this article for proof - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17399676 Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, can you add it, seeing as that's a valid citation and a valid opinion on him? You could take out "may he rot in hell", as that constitutes an opinion, but the rest surely constitutes fact Dennis071988 ( talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll keep them in mind in future. I'm new to this. AntiFa Pride ( talk) 14:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Susamd29. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A vandalism warning for simply adding uncited but perfectly plausible statements is unwarranted and off-putting. It fails to assume good faith. It also bites a newcomer. Please be more careful in future with warnings, and only use vandalism warnings where there is reason to believe there is ill-intent present. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrasinatingReader! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.
Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:
Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:
I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page, and I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your message. You are kind because on the Slovak Wikipedia this adjustment would have been deleted a long time ago, even if it is justified - only because of the sources. I want to ask if the source can also be articles in Slovak, I have seen them on other en Wiki pages, but I'm not sure if it's right. Well thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.102.238 ( talk • contribs)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
List of largest Eastern Orthodox church buildings.
Nyook
✉ 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for changing your name. I see you a lot in my watchlist and truthfully, the spelling of the old name kinda bugged me. Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with User:196.190.154.53 at AIV. I was actually just about to edit their name in, and I saw yours there, and I thought to myself, "Thank you so much." Cheers. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Proc, re the conversation we had off-wiki last night about warning templates, I thought you may be interested in [ talk discussion I've opened]. It may be one that sits better at village pump, but will wait to see what input is given. Cheers, Darren-M talk 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you removed it, but it was an excellent summary of the position Arbcom are in these cases. Thanks! —— Serial # 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Going off of your idea here, I've created Template:Beginner version. How does it look? The visual design could probably be improved, and there are some questions to be answered about implementation (e.g. where should it be placed relative to other templates?). Some editors might have concerns about the general idea of it, given the reception I got here. But hopefully it'll be possible to work through all that if we're patient. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Toshihiko Masuda with {{ prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, You'r right about the source problem, but its not a 'living person', he died 200 years ago.
I haven't revdel'd the revision here as it doesn't look like a blatant copyright violation as required by WP:CRD; all the quotes were sourced and by the look of it back to the original sources the museum used. I think a word with the user who added it to suggest that they cut down on the amount of direct quotation they use would be useful.
Thanks and please keep up the good work in spotting copyvios. Nthep ( talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Lych-gates mark the division between consecrated and unconsecrated ground. It was here, in this liminal space, that funeral-bearers stopped with their load. In some parts of Devon and Cornwall, the gates were known as “trim-trams” - a term which, it has been suggested, refers to a spot where the funeral train (tram) was “trimmed” or brought into the proper order “so as to be in a state of preparation for the officiating minister, on his coming forth to meet them there.”The book itself only contains the final, short quote part of this statement, regarding "state of preparation". The rest is written by mun.ca, perhaps based on content in the book, but it's certainly in their own words (none of it appears to be present in the book, e.g. "liminal space" has no results). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my question at WP:ANI seriously.
I think you have figured out the identity of the controversial individual.
On June 22nd, NBC published a long and interesting article by Asian-American journalist Kimmy Yan, that includes the phrase "...a history of Asian women being judged for whom they marry", that covers this individual, in detail.
If you google it, and read it, I'd welcome your opinion on whether you thought it was appropriate to use this reference in other articles on the wikipedia. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I was involved in the discussion and didn’t want to intervene in administrative procedures. There was some back-and-forth messing with the closed block, which began with these two edits: [1] [2], and the result still stands.
Afterwards, there were some editors’ comments removed by others involved in the discussions, so if you wanted to look at that too . . . Thanks. Michael Z. 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- MrX 🖋 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a thought for the future, if you're going to nominate something for copyright violations, it makes no sense to then remove that copyvio and leave nothing. If there's content worth saving, remove the CV and add a {{ revdel}} request. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 00:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, ProcrastinatingReader. I think it's fair to say that your latest reply to LA at BLPN is a bit verbose. You kind of state your whole case again, bringing multiple arguments that you've already given before and that LA hasn't really addressed. For conciseness, that is best left out - it's not like you'll change their mind that way. If you must, take only your very best argument and simply ask them for a response to that one argument.
Also, while I kind of get where you're coming from, bringing your opponent's behaviour into a content discussion does not lead to anything good. While you say that you AGF, I question if you're trying to be honest here
does sort of imply bad faith on their part, and about edit warring I'll note that they've not reinstated the suspect's name after I removed it yesterday, see
Special:history/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: in fact, they've further removed it.
I hope this advice is maybe somewhat helpful to you. Kind regards from PJvanMill) talk( 02:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shalom Reimer, you told the now-defunct sock Wiki2008Time "Feel free to find reliable sources that give her significant coverage and we can happily satisfy policies and keep it". I have since found sources and was wondering if you felt like returning to this AfD to take a look at such sources and to see if you still feel confindant in your delete !vote.
Best, Samsmachado ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You removed content which i added at Trump v. Vance with the words "rm excessive quotations and further refbombing". I added this content in response to an earlier content edit which was removed with the words "far too early to call it landmark, and one source is not sufficient". Two questions in this context: 1. What is refbombing? 2. What is the appropriate number of sources for the status landmark court decision? -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, PC! Let's not make decisions on IRC. —valereee ( talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I am reimplementing a moratorium on the topic of renaming to "Murder of George Floyd"hence I didn't think the clarification was required for my update in Special:Diff/967529338 but I did want to double check I wasn't misreading GN's statement, hence I requested a confirmation. Sorry GeneralNotability, but could you clarify again onwiki? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Never married again" is unsourced, not mentioned in source attributed to that entry. I can post sources, but until then, leave this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyJ ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want to do a 1400 page big AWB run it should be possible to handle most of them through User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster by making {{ Archive box collapsible}} a wrapper of {{ Archives}}. Just a suggestion though, I haven't actually taken an in depth look at implementation here. -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you edited under other accounts? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the template update in the climate pages! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This was interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the new knowledge. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You added {{Undisclosed paid|date=July 2020}} to CuriosityStream. Why did you do this, under what evidence? I made the last edit to add "including Nebula" and I was not paid - this promotion has been going going on for awhile and is probably the most well know partnership and I felt should be added to the article as is relevant. If you added that tag just because of my edit please remove. I added source from 1st party, but I could add more sources if that is what you want, but most sources are of people promoting the partnership so probably not good to add. -- Lefton4ya ( talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Would you please clarify how a RAT can steal someone’s online password? Does it involve hanging a little camera around the animal’s neck? Has this been done, in the past? catsmoke ( talk) 03:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Happy template editing! Salvio 16:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
Thank you for creating automatic image dimensions for DYK image hooks. I have been building prep sets at DYK for many years and I can attest that this is a wonderful improvement that eliminates all the guesswork. Thanks for your expertise! Yoninah ( talk) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, good luck with the bot trial. I noticed your bot ran into a problem at 2nd Streamy Awards. If you have a lot of those that cause you problems, you may want to skip anything with "Awards" in its name. Those pages should really be using {{ Infobox award}}. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
|first_aired=
above, it's implicitly given as the same year, but the year was omitted. Bot skipped it correctly. I don't think it'd result in false positives to make an inference here, but probably not worth the effort for the (hopefully) minority of templates that do this.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:
Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
The purpose of the amendment was to match the scope of the existing 1RR remedy and the discretionary sanctions remedy.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Please see this . Just like the edit I linked, I do not agree with your close. The consensus was for an actual merge, not for Template:Archive banner to become a wrapper of Template:Archives. Please either re-close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Template:Archive banner to reflect the consensus as so or relist the discussion. Otherwise, I may have to take the discussion to WP:DRV. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Statue of Edward Colston. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader
Thank you for creating Lewis Goodall.
User:Synoman Barris, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Meets WP: JOURNALIST, otherwise good work.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Synoman Barris}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi guy what's up,
I just have extended the Wikiproject football by adding Greek task force in it. I will add a Greek flag for Greek football task force and vow not to ruin it. I just wanna edit the template of the project Template:Wikiproject football in order to do I require access to edits. Plz do grant me the access.
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader
Why are you moving other editor's user pages and tagging them for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Bot's starting to mess up. See [3] and other recent edits. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym Update: Bot has updated all it can, I believe. Still, just under 5,000 pages remain in
Category:Pages using infobox television with nonstandard dates. At a spotcheck of 25, these range from formatting issues (eg |last_aired=
using {{
start date}}), to both start and end date being in the same param (separated by a dash), to cases where first_aired omits the year, to a host of less common issues like
Fun Factory (TV series).
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
|film_start=
and |film_end=
. Would you want me to add logic to check these usages as well? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
| first_aired = October 23, 1991 <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />June 10, 1992 <small>(Japan)</small><br />July 17, 1992 <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
| first_aired = {{start date|1991|10|23}} <small>(United States/Canada)</small><br />{{start date|1992|6|10}} <small>(Japan)</small><br />{{start date|1992|7|17}} <small>(Japan, VHS release)</small>
A motion was posted 8 September regarding the clarification request you are a party to. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Abortion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- See section "Pasdecomplot continued WP:OR and other conduct problems" CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. In these edits, procbot seems determined to edit my sandbox. Sandboxes are used to try things out and I'm not currently interested in experimenting with the start-date and end-date templates. These bot edits were harmless (but annoying) - my concern is that by tampering with my experiments, you're just creating work for me if I'm ever doing anything interesting or time-consuming. I've had the nobots template in place for quite a while now, so I assume your bot is ignoring it. Is it possible/sensible to stop the bot attacking all sandboxes (at least pages with that name perhaps) or do you have an exclusion list that allows specific pages to be left alone? A better solution IMHO would be to stop disrespecting the nobots template but you may have reasons for disregarding it. Thanks :) -- Northernhenge ( talk) 15:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
For better or worse, it's a tragedy of the commons situation: individuals think their preferred edit notice is of key importance, but scale that up to everyone, and editors just ignore the resulting ubiquitous messages. On the flip side, it's probably too late to do anything about the banner blindness effect with Wikipedia's current edit notices anyway, so it's generally not worth getting into protracted discussions about it. isaacl ( talk) 21:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your email and kind words! Getting too old to worry about it and want to spend what time I have left editing like I've been doing. Never had a problem using the tools through those who have them. Admins are a very helpful bunch! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Re Special:Diff/980734615 and Special:Diff/980734656: it's the presence of {{ documentation}} that provides the automatic protection icon on most templates, not whether or not they're subpages. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 05:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Template:Editnotices/Page/User talk:Dreamy Jazz Bot is deliberately placed there because its to ensure new editors don't post there. It also means I get the "You have a new message" yellow button thing which catches my attention quicker than my watchlist. The bot's talk page is a redirect to my talk page. It was moved (as per the BRFA approves) to the editnotice place for my talk page. Is there someway to stop the bot from moving the page in the future? I ask this because the bot is not exclusion compliant according to the BRFA. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
|redirect=yes
should be set. Hope this helps.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
thanks for going the extra mile by letting me know about the redirect parameter and that the editnotice wasn't in the right place to begin with. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit: I presume you meant to link to the user's page, and not a template? isaacl ( talk) 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement has been closed and archived. The archived clarification request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On 6 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Alton Manning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1998 inquest found that the killing of Alton Manning was unlawful, and a judicial review found that the decision to not bring charges was flawed, but no charges have yet been filed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Alton Manning. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Killing of Alton Manning), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Edward Colston you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 ( talk) 18:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I understand your concerns about {{ infobox settlement}}; some of the wrappers trim down a lot of the unnecessary "baggage" that is standard across a group of pages (I did a subst-job for Template:Infobox Finnish municipality which ended up introducing on average about +1k on every page, just because of the hard-coded values the wrapper employed). It might not be easy, but it's probably a good time to be thinking about sub-templates that can store these common values and save a little space in articles.
I'm bringing this up because of your main concern about updates; if these sorts of changes can be enacted, I am more than happy to lend my bot to removing any redundant or unnecessary parameters that can be automatically supplied by IB settlement. If you want to discuss it further let me know, but I likely won't involve myself in any overhaul except for in a technical or supervisory capacity. Primefac ( talk) 03:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|government_blank1_title=
values). There may be others, too. I think it's quite a bad idea to expose this stuff to local articles all the time. Imagine if one was creating a Finnish infobox today, what's the odds that those fields would be correctly filled. How about an Israeli place vis-a-vis the transcription ones?Still, I also think it's a bad idea to have per-location wrappers to hide it behind. Maybe a good way to hide it would be to have this hidden in a data template, which is defaulted to by IS based on the |subdivision_name=
value to fetch default values for all of these fields. I'm not too sure on the neatest technical implementation yet, but I think this would work? With the Finnish substitution the value of that param is currently a flag, but that's just a difference in an extra bot step. Your thoughts on achieving this technically?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|government_blank1_title=
in the same way (barring blatantly-incorrect uses), then instead of calling that parameter from the article the template itself would call a subpage based on the country/subdivision/etc. Area and demographics could in theory be stored as a subtemplate (again, no need to have dozens of articles calling {{
Data Finland municipality}} if the template itself can do it automatically.|population=
for every potential use). Things like |subdivision_name=
could potentially be hard-coded, since every city in Japan will use |subdivision_name=Japan
so the #switch will be much smaller.
Primefac (
talk) 13:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
|governor=
or |mayor=
rather than |leader_title5=
(which is less clear imo) but still not sure how to properly do a resolver for this on a per-country/locale/governance-type level. (the simple answer to this would probably be "use a wrapper!" but I digress)
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Regarding the close at Reference search tools talk page templates discussion at TfD to merge, I sure hope the search options don't get dumbed-down, where some may be omitted because they all may not look pretty crammed within the talk header template. Time will tell. If this were to occur, it would be a failure of form over function. North America 1000 03:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Skdb just following up on this, is implementing the TfD something you planned to do or is it up for grabs at holding? Is the edit in sandbox complete? If so, I presume the only thing missing is a bot run to remove duplicates at the same time? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're not going to allow me to reply to your pointed comment about me in a TfD close, please remove it from that close and put it on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Procrastinating Reader,
What was the basis for your selection of edit notices to delete? I didn't see that any were actually tagged for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the incident you were referring to
here, but I agree that users should not be sanctioned for behavior that occurred prior to them being aware of discretionary sanctions. The section of
WP:AC/DS on page-level sanctions does specify this explicitly: Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction: The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict...
. Is it the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts portion you felt was insufficiently specific?
GorillaWarfare
(talk) 20:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your close at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 16#Template:Welcome-personal, am I correct that your intent in the close is to have {{ Welcome cookie}} remove the TotD message then have {{ Welcome-personal}} redirect there? Or vice-versa? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Nthep ( talk) 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
treats -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Please reconsider your close of
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020_October 24#Template:Licht, which does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes "[the navbox
), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}
] contains all of the links in the nominated template""there is not a single article using
). TfD is not a vote.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
{{Licht}}
which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}
"
Count me in for Delete, - I just had no time. There's not a single article which has the Licht template alone, and in the larger template, it's the very top. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, your recent BRFA ( Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProcBot 3) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, ProcrastinatingReader,
I didn't really see a way for me to comment on this proposal. I also don't understand what it does that helps fill up categories. Would this also help with CSD G6s and G8s? These are mostly uncontroversial or dated maintenance pages and categories that are tagged for deletion but do not show up in CSD categories. It's been brought up several times at WP:VPT and we've been told that it's not a priority. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr: ({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +5 months}} < {{#time: U}})and({{#time: U | {{{revisionts|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}}}} +6 months}} > {{#time: U}})|{{#if:{{{demo|}}}||[[Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}]]}}}}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ProcrastinatingReader. Thank you. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You helpfully noted in the IRANPOL sanctions page that user notifications didn't have to be logged any more. There is still a small problem in that the edit filter doesn't set the tag properly in the history, as I described here. Do you happen to know if any edit filter work was done to enable the current system for notifying? It looks like it has a bug. It *should* be setting the tag 'discretionary sanctions alert' in the edit history of the person's talk page, but is not doing so. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Gs/alert|iranpol}}
(or just {{
Gs/alert|irp}}
- same thing) it should log as expected. The old templates are tagged with "don't use this anymore" notices, but to avoid confusion I sent them all
to TFD last week.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the block, though ill-judged on my part, was not for lack of indents or indenting incorrectly. The block was for refusing to even try to learn how to correctly indent, which had become very disruptive on the incredibly high-traffic talk page involved. I shouldn’t have blocked them; while I wasn’t in any content disputes with them, I was heavily editing the same talk page, and I should have asked someone else. When my lapse in judgement was brought to my attention my immediate reaction was, “That’s fair.” [4] They did eventually pay attention and are consistently making good-faith efforts to format replies correctly. Yay progress! :D —valereee ( talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Valereee: I came here to talk to ProcrastinatingReader who enacted a substitution on 6 Nov [5] but Template:Infobox Iceland municipality is still not deleted. Seeing the above discussion and that you are an admin, could you delete it? TerraCyprus ( talk) 23:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, could you please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Proud_Boys#Regarding_recently_closed_RfC and perhaps provide clarification to a RFC you closed? Thanks IHateAccounts ( talk) 18:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
merit close
Thank you for quality articles such as Statue of Edward Colston, Killing of Alton Manning and Lewis Goodall, for your bot, for work as a template editor, for fighting vandalism, for "So merit was determined based on arguments for whether there should be a sidebar at all." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2475 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
perfect example of a bad compromise, and with BD's thoughts, I decided against it. The only alternative here was me letting it sit by until (most likely) Primefac closed it as no consensus in a few weeks. I imagine its transclusions will be nominated separately now; tedious, but seems the only way forward. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, PR,
This category has a warning not to delete it so could you link to the deletion discussion where it was determined it should be deleted? There is another category that you've tagged for deletion where it would be helpful for the admin looking at it to be able to read over the deletion discussion. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there any possibility completely delete my account including my discussions?
Regards,
Mirhasanov ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- —valereee ( talk) 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds;
I noticed that when someone proposed an addition, you curtly replied, not incorrectly, "you need sources". I don't have any horse in the proposed addition, but just for a lark, wouldn't it be interesting to actually help users like this by going and actually, yourself, finding sources that undoubtedly exist?
I have lots of take-aways to learn from our interactions. If I could leave you with any moral at the end of the story, it would be that you would be far more effective if you had more insight into the process of looking for sources as part of a collaborative process, rather than sitting back and thumbs-downing the hard work of others as my (admittedly VERY cursory) skim of your editing history suggests.
It's easy to sit back and say "you need sourcing". But if you think the addition merits inclusion, maybe invest the time to find the sourcing yourself and pull your own weight. Alternatively, if you don't think the addition merits inclusion, then maybe you should just "person up" (aka "man up") and admit the suggestion sucks.
But of course, this is a learning experience for us all, and I will certainly adapt in the future in response to the feedback I've received. Feoffer ( talk) 05:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
but I don't see why this fact (the appointing president) matters here); although (per my correction) I'd misunderstood what they were getting at. There's a lot of proposed changes on this wiki, and it's usually faster for someone who's already done the research, has the sources and is passionate about the change to go the extra step of improving it, verses me doing the digging from scratch.
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
A cupcake of gratitude for your efforts, including your patience and taking those right moments to breathe, regarding Emily W. Murphy. Thank you for your ongoing, valuable contributions to Wikipedia, even if it can be challenging sometimes to keep it up! Missvain ( talk) 17:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
Category:Obsolete Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The talk page at Emily Webster got nearly 1000 views yesterday. Talk:Joe Biden only had 500 lol. —valereee ( talk) 17:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done, seems to have gone pretty smoothly :) Enterprisey ( talk!) 09:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Procrastinating Reader, I really appreciated your initiation of the deletion discussion for Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment... those things have always bothered me because of the points you made and by filling up the talk pages even when they're 5–10 years old. I see that the admin who closed it said "Any discussion regarding converting the template into something else can be had elsewhere" – do you have any plans to start such a conversation? Although I'm not sure where it would talk place... Best - Aza24 ( talk) 07:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
One again I must ask you to reconsider a TfD close; I do not believe that a correct weighing of the comments on Template:Composer sidebar woudl result in "no consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014), has been archived. You can view the permalink for the clarification request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Thinking about a radical reduction of talk page banners. Inviting you since I know you've had an interest in talk page banners. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, ProcrastinatingReader,
I'm back again. This category typically contains between 4,000 and 5,000 drafts and it is now at about 3,000 pages. Could you do whatever it is that you do that fills it back up? Is it something that you could teach me to do so I could do it every 2 weeks or so and then I don't have to bother you? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi PR. At Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, the {{ map requested}} box runs wider than all the other {{ tmbox}}-based templates. Do you have any ideas why it isn't wrapping at the same width as the other boxes? I was going to put in an edit request to fix it but I can't figure it out. Levivich harass/ hound 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
For some reason {{
gs/editnotice|covid}} gives the "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required.", but
Template:COVID19 GS editnotice clearly exists and as far as I can tell there's no reason passing covid
shouldn't trigger the appropriate warning on edit summaries. I'm still going to replace all of the current uses of the old GS notice, but I thought you should be aware (since I'm tired and not really up for picking apart your module).
Primefac (
talk) 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You were right. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor( discuss) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, would it be possible to change the format of page names at User:ProcBot/EW to use {{ la}} or similar (or {{ pagelinks}} if it does more than just articles). No worries if not, but thought it couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ghostbusters! [6] LOL ♟♙ ( talk) 21:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit here, this removal is only allowable if the article Nicholas Alahverdian is deleted. While a validly formulated article about the deceased still exists, so do their entries in the Deaths pages. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 10:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi PR, thank you for keeping tabs on Pasdecomplot. In the last AN/I thread that lead to their latest sanctions, I noted their intentional distortion of sourcing to add inflammatory terminology, and within 24 hours of their being unblocked, they have done the same without updating any of the sourcing. Another large-scale revert immediately after unblocking does not bode well, and if this continues, a broadly construed topic ban in Buddhism and Tibet would be in order. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, thank you for fixing the socks properly, unlike the way I did it. I'm still rough around the edges when it comes to that. Could you help clean up Talk:2020 United States election protests as well? Its the exact same sock users. Thank you in advance, Albertaont ( talk) 22:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Christmas tree in field.jpg | Merry Christmas ProcrastinatingReader |
Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |