Φ
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| September 25, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! -- Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~ | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Hello I did add a reference/source to my edit. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3109809/chinas-aircraft-carrier-killer-missiles-successfully-hit-target 158.223.166.78 ( talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You added an incorrectly formatted external link to a section that does not take external links, with no indication as to what claim it is supposed to be supporting. That's not adding a reference, that's linkspam. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The sky sword unit is a Chinese special forces unit belonging to the PLAAF Airborne Brigade 158.223.166.78 ( talk) 16:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You need to provide a properly formatted reference for that claim. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Swatjester. Thank you for your work on Mako (missile). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
With regard to " people will object just to the re-organizing despite what WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PGBOLD say," I'd change "people" to "one person in particular." Can you say Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling? - Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the number of people who would do this is quite a few, unfortunately. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
| April 25: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for NYC Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. Meeting info:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
-- Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
On Logopedia, many CW affiliates rebranded, also, those logos are real and have been does by the affiliates owners or Nexstar. BMarGlines ( talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
BMarGlines: Logopedia is a wiki which anyone can edit, and it is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, every single one of those logos was a hand-made replacement from Junebug, not an original. There's simply no evidence to suggest that these are in any way official logos, and there's no evidence to suggest that the actual logos which are still in use on those affiliates websites (which are NOT the ones you've been adding) have changed either. To be honest, it looks quite a bit like a weirdly disruptive attempt to get around our non-free image usage criteria by using near-knockoffs released under free licenses instead of the actual logos (which remain under the claimed copyright of their owners). In any event, as I said, you'll need to provide a reliable source for your changes.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- The KOMU-DT3 YouTube video AIRED on the ACTUAL station!
BMarGlines (
talk) 12:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it's not an acceptable reliable source, and the actual KOMU-TV website is *not* using that logo. Do not make further unsourced logo changes to logos not actually in use. Per policy, you *must* provide a citation to a reliable source and gain consensus before reinserting this material. If you continue, you may be blocked from further editing for disruption.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same with WWTI-DT2 BMarGlines ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it's not an acceptable reliable source, and the actual KOMU-TV website is *not* using that logo. Do not make further unsourced logo changes to logos not actually in use. Per policy, you *must* provide a citation to a reliable source and gain consensus before reinserting this material. If you continue, you may be blocked from further editing for disruption.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The KOMU-DT3 YouTube video AIRED on the ACTUAL station!
BMarGlines (
talk) 12:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- And once again, there is the same problem -- you have not provided a reliable source that shows the logo has changed, and as far as I can tell thus far, literally every single one of those logo changes has been invalid: not just due to being unsourced but in several cases I was able to verify that you were changing the logo *away* from the actual one in use, to one that has no evidence of being in use and appears to be fan-created. You seem to be under the mistaken perception that following Wikipedia policy is optional -- it is not. You are *required* by policy to provide a reliable source for contested material, and you are required to seek and gain consensus before reinserting controversial content. See, e.g.
WP:V,
WP:RS,
WP:BURDEN etc. "Some guy on youtube says this is official" is NOT a reliable source -- and in general the community has determined that Youtube videos are not reliable sources either (see
WP:RSPYT). "I got it off Logopedia" is also not a reliable source (as that is a wiki that anyone can edit). And you're presumably already aware that Junebug was taking these fan-made images off of Logopedia, converting their format, and uploading them inappropriately to Commons under incorrect licenses, to then try and replace the *actual* logos on Wikipedia with her fanmade fakes -- a type of vandalism that you're also participating. You've been made aware of what our policies require several times, you've been repeatedly warned, and this is not a subject up for debate -- if you continue to make disruptive edits to television station logos, you're going to be blocked from editing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have filed a report over on Commons (
c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:BMarGlines) and nominated the logos for deletion.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW I suspect
this one may have also been in error, as I do not see that logo in use anywhere on the KFDM website, and suspect it's like the others (the file page similarly notes it was inappropriately sourced from Logopedia, which makes it unverifiable as being official in any way).
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- KOMU-DT3's logo on the main KOMU website came from TitanTV BMarGlines ( talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW I suspect
this one may have also been in error, as I do not see that logo in use anywhere on the KFDM website, and suspect it's like the others (the file page similarly notes it was inappropriately sourced from Logopedia, which makes it unverifiable as being official in any way).
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have filed a report over on Commons (
c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:BMarGlines) and nominated the logos for deletion.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- And once again, there is the same problem -- you have not provided a reliable source that shows the logo has changed, and as far as I can tell thus far, literally every single one of those logo changes has been invalid: not just due to being unsourced but in several cases I was able to verify that you were changing the logo *away* from the actual one in use, to one that has no evidence of being in use and appears to be fan-created. You seem to be under the mistaken perception that following Wikipedia policy is optional -- it is not. You are *required* by policy to provide a reliable source for contested material, and you are required to seek and gain consensus before reinserting controversial content. See, e.g.
WP:V,
WP:RS,
WP:BURDEN etc. "Some guy on youtube says this is official" is NOT a reliable source -- and in general the community has determined that Youtube videos are not reliable sources either (see
WP:RSPYT). "I got it off Logopedia" is also not a reliable source (as that is a wiki that anyone can edit). And you're presumably already aware that Junebug was taking these fan-made images off of Logopedia, converting their format, and uploading them inappropriately to Commons under incorrect licenses, to then try and replace the *actual* logos on Wikipedia with her fanmade fakes -- a type of vandalism that you're also participating. You've been made aware of what our policies require several times, you've been repeatedly warned, and this is not a subject up for debate -- if you continue to make disruptive edits to television station logos, you're going to be blocked from editing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It needs to be explained that some stations aired station identifications with the new CW Logo. I'm not saying you're wrong.
mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him |
Talk •
Contributions) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case. And the way we can confirm that is by providing a reliable source to verify that a new CW logo exists. We cannot simply rely on someone's mere assertion that a change happened, and we cannot accept fan-made copies found on wikis as substitutes purporting to be the real thing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I do agree with you. I do have an question, some of the CW Plus logos have been updated, (the ones that aren't owned by say, Sinclair or Nexstar, A.K.A. the ones that the website is the one that The CW can provide to its affiliates) .... I think I forgot the question I was going to say. Oops. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case. And the way we can confirm that is by providing a reliable source to verify that a new CW logo exists. We cannot simply rely on someone's mere assertion that a change happened, and we cannot accept fan-made copies found on wikis as substitutes purporting to be the real thing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The website reads old logos, but they're outdated! BMarGlines ( talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If they're actively being used on the website, then your mere assertion that they are "outdated" in the face of evidence to the contrary is not just meaningless -- it's disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I could be banned ALL across MediaWiki due to evading the ban on Dream Logos Wiki!
BMarGlines (
talk) 16:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how banning works, as that's not a WMF-controlled wiki -- but if you're already ban evading elsewhere, you absolutely will not bring that disruptive behavior over here. Tread very carefully.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If MediaWiki announced a universal ban, that means that it may spread across Wikimedia or Fandom
BMarGlines (
talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fandom is a separate entity that has no relationship to Wikimedia. The two networks do not share accounts, thus it's not possible for there to be a "universal ban" as far as I'm aware, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- They both use MediaWiki
BMarGlines (
talk) 03:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- MediaWiki is just the software. Lots of companies use MediaWiki. You can take a look at the banning policy -- there's nothing in there about a MediaWiki ban. I have no idea why you're banned on the Dream Logos Wiki (I could hazard a guess though...), but what they do there has no power to affect anything here. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- They both use MediaWiki
BMarGlines (
talk) 03:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fandom is a separate entity that has no relationship to Wikimedia. The two networks do not share accounts, thus it's not possible for there to be a "universal ban" as far as I'm aware, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If MediaWiki announced a universal ban, that means that it may spread across Wikimedia or Fandom
BMarGlines (
talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how banning works, as that's not a WMF-controlled wiki -- but if you're already ban evading elsewhere, you absolutely will not bring that disruptive behavior over here. Tread very carefully.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
WHDF's logo that you added was from when it debuted on YouTube TV, and it changed on Facebook, this may lead to WHDF on Wikipedia ending up with its first CW logo. BMarGlines ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not "added" anything -- I have reverted the undiscussed and unsourced changes that do not appear to have any evidence for being correct or accurate. As I've mentioned multiple times now, you'll need to cite a reliable source that these logos have changed.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even worse, I could be globally banned from Wikimedia Foundation from evading Dream Logos Wiki ban, a website-to-website evasion.
BMarGlines (
talk) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote above about how Wikimedia Foundation banning policy works. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even worse, I could be globally banned from Wikimedia Foundation from evading Dream Logos Wiki ban, a website-to-website evasion.
BMarGlines (
talk) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not "added" anything -- I have reverted the undiscussed and unsourced changes that do not appear to have any evidence for being correct or accurate. As I've mentioned multiple times now, you'll need to cite a reliable source that these logos have changed.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
After reviewing the sources, most do not seem authoritative. Sources from the British Army and MoD only suggest that they will be roughly modeled on the Green Berets, and will share the FID and UW role of SF. That, however, does not mean that they should be considered equivalents as US Army SF is a SOF unit which is able to undertake the full range of SOF missions. Nowhere in the article is that distinction made, and you deleted my well-sourced section that outlined the differences.
So what sort of edit would be appropriate? Wikipedia is the public's primary source of information on these units, and at present this article is lacking important context. 165.166.230.211 ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I shouldn't say "context" but rather nuance. For instance nowhere does it acknowledge that the Rangers are not as capable of operating behind enemy lines due to a lack of language training. It doesn't mention that US Army SF medics train in civilian trauma centers for months in order to gain experience to prepare them as a medical provider for rural civilians in other countries to engender good will with the populace. It doesn't mention that the Rangers train for 3 months while Green Berets train for over a year in many instances. The Rangers are also not airborne qualified and are not reported to have any specialization for insertion.
- All of this was mentioned in the section that you said did not actually make any comparisons. 165.166.230.211 ( talk) 04:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not require sources to be "authoritative." Please carefully review our policy on verifiability and avoiding undue weight, and the guidelines on reliable sources. Your section, while partially adequately sourced, was a massive WP:COATRACK violation, and constitutes undue weight. It did not actually make any comparisons between the two units -- it spent multiple paragraphs describing the Special Forces pipeline, and only in passing mentions that Ranger Regiment has a shorter training cycle, and that it's unknown what the future is. That is not a "comparison" -- that is simply off-topic content that is not directly relevant to the Ranger Regiment article. In contrast, however, the other in-line references that the Ranger Regiment is modeled after Special Forces (which is a very different thing than what you are claiming), were an appropriate amount of weight given their short length, clear conclusions, and reliable sourcing. The article in its present state already provides sufficient information about the origins of the Ranger Regiment. A comparison section *could* be appropriate, if it actually made a direct comparison of the two units, without undue weight, and did so in a way that was reliably sourced, constructive, and encyclopedic. Nowhere, however, did I see anything stating they were "considered equivalents" or "undertaking the full range of SOF missions" -- these are things that the article does not actually claim. Furthermore, your statement that "all of this was mentioned in the section..." is flatly false. None of those things were mentioned in the form of a direct comparison, cited to a reliable source. You simply stated that these were capabilities of SF -- the section made no mention nor comparison whatsoever of whether Rangers are airborne qualified, have any specialization for insertion, etc. Please see our policy against synthesis -- claims need to be directly sourced, and must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source nor combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
- So what we're left with, is me removing a bunch of inappropriate material from the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines; you reverting to add it back in; then further disrupting the article by saying effectively "well, if I can't have my content included, then I'm going to remove a bunch of other perfectly good content." That kind of behavior is unacceptable disruptive editing, and it needs to stop. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm currently on vacation in rural Indiana, with limited internet access. I'll have limited/delayed ability to respond to inquiries until I return on Monday the 27th. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Φ
|
| This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
| September 25, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! -- Wikimedia New York City Team ~~~~~ | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Hello I did add a reference/source to my edit. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3109809/chinas-aircraft-carrier-killer-missiles-successfully-hit-target 158.223.166.78 ( talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You added an incorrectly formatted external link to a section that does not take external links, with no indication as to what claim it is supposed to be supporting. That's not adding a reference, that's linkspam. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The sky sword unit is a Chinese special forces unit belonging to the PLAAF Airborne Brigade 158.223.166.78 ( talk) 16:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You need to provide a properly formatted reference for that claim. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Swatjester. Thank you for your work on Mako (missile). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
With regard to " people will object just to the re-organizing despite what WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PGBOLD say," I'd change "people" to "one person in particular." Can you say Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling? - Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the number of people who would do this is quite a few, unfortunately. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
| April 25: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for NYC Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. Meeting info:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
-- Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
On Logopedia, many CW affiliates rebranded, also, those logos are real and have been does by the affiliates owners or Nexstar. BMarGlines ( talk) 23:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @
BMarGlines: Logopedia is a wiki which anyone can edit, and it is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, every single one of those logos was a hand-made replacement from Junebug, not an original. There's simply no evidence to suggest that these are in any way official logos, and there's no evidence to suggest that the actual logos which are still in use on those affiliates websites (which are NOT the ones you've been adding) have changed either. To be honest, it looks quite a bit like a weirdly disruptive attempt to get around our non-free image usage criteria by using near-knockoffs released under free licenses instead of the actual logos (which remain under the claimed copyright of their owners). In any event, as I said, you'll need to provide a reliable source for your changes.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- The KOMU-DT3 YouTube video AIRED on the ACTUAL station!
BMarGlines (
talk) 12:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it's not an acceptable reliable source, and the actual KOMU-TV website is *not* using that logo. Do not make further unsourced logo changes to logos not actually in use. Per policy, you *must* provide a citation to a reliable source and gain consensus before reinserting this material. If you continue, you may be blocked from further editing for disruption.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same with WWTI-DT2 BMarGlines ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but it's not an acceptable reliable source, and the actual KOMU-TV website is *not* using that logo. Do not make further unsourced logo changes to logos not actually in use. Per policy, you *must* provide a citation to a reliable source and gain consensus before reinserting this material. If you continue, you may be blocked from further editing for disruption.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The KOMU-DT3 YouTube video AIRED on the ACTUAL station!
BMarGlines (
talk) 12:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- And once again, there is the same problem -- you have not provided a reliable source that shows the logo has changed, and as far as I can tell thus far, literally every single one of those logo changes has been invalid: not just due to being unsourced but in several cases I was able to verify that you were changing the logo *away* from the actual one in use, to one that has no evidence of being in use and appears to be fan-created. You seem to be under the mistaken perception that following Wikipedia policy is optional -- it is not. You are *required* by policy to provide a reliable source for contested material, and you are required to seek and gain consensus before reinserting controversial content. See, e.g.
WP:V,
WP:RS,
WP:BURDEN etc. "Some guy on youtube says this is official" is NOT a reliable source -- and in general the community has determined that Youtube videos are not reliable sources either (see
WP:RSPYT). "I got it off Logopedia" is also not a reliable source (as that is a wiki that anyone can edit). And you're presumably already aware that Junebug was taking these fan-made images off of Logopedia, converting their format, and uploading them inappropriately to Commons under incorrect licenses, to then try and replace the *actual* logos on Wikipedia with her fanmade fakes -- a type of vandalism that you're also participating. You've been made aware of what our policies require several times, you've been repeatedly warned, and this is not a subject up for debate -- if you continue to make disruptive edits to television station logos, you're going to be blocked from editing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have filed a report over on Commons (
c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:BMarGlines) and nominated the logos for deletion.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW I suspect
this one may have also been in error, as I do not see that logo in use anywhere on the KFDM website, and suspect it's like the others (the file page similarly notes it was inappropriately sourced from Logopedia, which makes it unverifiable as being official in any way).
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- KOMU-DT3's logo on the main KOMU website came from TitanTV BMarGlines ( talk) 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW I suspect
this one may have also been in error, as I do not see that logo in use anywhere on the KFDM website, and suspect it's like the others (the file page similarly notes it was inappropriately sourced from Logopedia, which makes it unverifiable as being official in any way).
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have filed a report over on Commons (
c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:BMarGlines) and nominated the logos for deletion.
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- And once again, there is the same problem -- you have not provided a reliable source that shows the logo has changed, and as far as I can tell thus far, literally every single one of those logo changes has been invalid: not just due to being unsourced but in several cases I was able to verify that you were changing the logo *away* from the actual one in use, to one that has no evidence of being in use and appears to be fan-created. You seem to be under the mistaken perception that following Wikipedia policy is optional -- it is not. You are *required* by policy to provide a reliable source for contested material, and you are required to seek and gain consensus before reinserting controversial content. See, e.g.
WP:V,
WP:RS,
WP:BURDEN etc. "Some guy on youtube says this is official" is NOT a reliable source -- and in general the community has determined that Youtube videos are not reliable sources either (see
WP:RSPYT). "I got it off Logopedia" is also not a reliable source (as that is a wiki that anyone can edit). And you're presumably already aware that Junebug was taking these fan-made images off of Logopedia, converting their format, and uploading them inappropriately to Commons under incorrect licenses, to then try and replace the *actual* logos on Wikipedia with her fanmade fakes -- a type of vandalism that you're also participating. You've been made aware of what our policies require several times, you've been repeatedly warned, and this is not a subject up for debate -- if you continue to make disruptive edits to television station logos, you're going to be blocked from editing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It needs to be explained that some stations aired station identifications with the new CW Logo. I'm not saying you're wrong.
mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him |
Talk •
Contributions) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case. And the way we can confirm that is by providing a reliable source to verify that a new CW logo exists. We cannot simply rely on someone's mere assertion that a change happened, and we cannot accept fan-made copies found on wikis as substitutes purporting to be the real thing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I do agree with you. I do have an question, some of the CW Plus logos have been updated, (the ones that aren't owned by say, Sinclair or Nexstar, A.K.A. the ones that the website is the one that The CW can provide to its affiliates) .... I think I forgot the question I was going to say. Oops. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That may be the case. And the way we can confirm that is by providing a reliable source to verify that a new CW logo exists. We cannot simply rely on someone's mere assertion that a change happened, and we cannot accept fan-made copies found on wikis as substitutes purporting to be the real thing.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The website reads old logos, but they're outdated! BMarGlines ( talk) 16:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If they're actively being used on the website, then your mere assertion that they are "outdated" in the face of evidence to the contrary is not just meaningless -- it's disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I could be banned ALL across MediaWiki due to evading the ban on Dream Logos Wiki!
BMarGlines (
talk) 16:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how banning works, as that's not a WMF-controlled wiki -- but if you're already ban evading elsewhere, you absolutely will not bring that disruptive behavior over here. Tread very carefully.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- If MediaWiki announced a universal ban, that means that it may spread across Wikimedia or Fandom
BMarGlines (
talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fandom is a separate entity that has no relationship to Wikimedia. The two networks do not share accounts, thus it's not possible for there to be a "universal ban" as far as I'm aware, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- They both use MediaWiki
BMarGlines (
talk) 03:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- MediaWiki is just the software. Lots of companies use MediaWiki. You can take a look at the banning policy -- there's nothing in there about a MediaWiki ban. I have no idea why you're banned on the Dream Logos Wiki (I could hazard a guess though...), but what they do there has no power to affect anything here. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- They both use MediaWiki
BMarGlines (
talk) 03:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fandom is a separate entity that has no relationship to Wikimedia. The two networks do not share accounts, thus it's not possible for there to be a "universal ban" as far as I'm aware, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If MediaWiki announced a universal ban, that means that it may spread across Wikimedia or Fandom
BMarGlines (
talk) 02:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's not how banning works, as that's not a WMF-controlled wiki -- but if you're already ban evading elsewhere, you absolutely will not bring that disruptive behavior over here. Tread very carefully.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
WHDF's logo that you added was from when it debuted on YouTube TV, and it changed on Facebook, this may lead to WHDF on Wikipedia ending up with its first CW logo. BMarGlines ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not "added" anything -- I have reverted the undiscussed and unsourced changes that do not appear to have any evidence for being correct or accurate. As I've mentioned multiple times now, you'll need to cite a reliable source that these logos have changed.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even worse, I could be globally banned from Wikimedia Foundation from evading Dream Logos Wiki ban, a website-to-website evasion.
BMarGlines (
talk) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote above about how Wikimedia Foundation banning policy works. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even worse, I could be globally banned from Wikimedia Foundation from evading Dream Logos Wiki ban, a website-to-website evasion.
BMarGlines (
talk) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not "added" anything -- I have reverted the undiscussed and unsourced changes that do not appear to have any evidence for being correct or accurate. As I've mentioned multiple times now, you'll need to cite a reliable source that these logos have changed.
⇒
SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
After reviewing the sources, most do not seem authoritative. Sources from the British Army and MoD only suggest that they will be roughly modeled on the Green Berets, and will share the FID and UW role of SF. That, however, does not mean that they should be considered equivalents as US Army SF is a SOF unit which is able to undertake the full range of SOF missions. Nowhere in the article is that distinction made, and you deleted my well-sourced section that outlined the differences.
So what sort of edit would be appropriate? Wikipedia is the public's primary source of information on these units, and at present this article is lacking important context. 165.166.230.211 ( talk) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I shouldn't say "context" but rather nuance. For instance nowhere does it acknowledge that the Rangers are not as capable of operating behind enemy lines due to a lack of language training. It doesn't mention that US Army SF medics train in civilian trauma centers for months in order to gain experience to prepare them as a medical provider for rural civilians in other countries to engender good will with the populace. It doesn't mention that the Rangers train for 3 months while Green Berets train for over a year in many instances. The Rangers are also not airborne qualified and are not reported to have any specialization for insertion.
- All of this was mentioned in the section that you said did not actually make any comparisons. 165.166.230.211 ( talk) 04:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not require sources to be "authoritative." Please carefully review our policy on verifiability and avoiding undue weight, and the guidelines on reliable sources. Your section, while partially adequately sourced, was a massive WP:COATRACK violation, and constitutes undue weight. It did not actually make any comparisons between the two units -- it spent multiple paragraphs describing the Special Forces pipeline, and only in passing mentions that Ranger Regiment has a shorter training cycle, and that it's unknown what the future is. That is not a "comparison" -- that is simply off-topic content that is not directly relevant to the Ranger Regiment article. In contrast, however, the other in-line references that the Ranger Regiment is modeled after Special Forces (which is a very different thing than what you are claiming), were an appropriate amount of weight given their short length, clear conclusions, and reliable sourcing. The article in its present state already provides sufficient information about the origins of the Ranger Regiment. A comparison section *could* be appropriate, if it actually made a direct comparison of the two units, without undue weight, and did so in a way that was reliably sourced, constructive, and encyclopedic. Nowhere, however, did I see anything stating they were "considered equivalents" or "undertaking the full range of SOF missions" -- these are things that the article does not actually claim. Furthermore, your statement that "all of this was mentioned in the section..." is flatly false. None of those things were mentioned in the form of a direct comparison, cited to a reliable source. You simply stated that these were capabilities of SF -- the section made no mention nor comparison whatsoever of whether Rangers are airborne qualified, have any specialization for insertion, etc. Please see our policy against synthesis -- claims need to be directly sourced, and must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source nor combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
- So what we're left with, is me removing a bunch of inappropriate material from the article in accordance with our policies and guidelines; you reverting to add it back in; then further disrupting the article by saying effectively "well, if I can't have my content included, then I'm going to remove a bunch of other perfectly good content." That kind of behavior is unacceptable disruptive editing, and it needs to stop. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm currently on vacation in rural Indiana, with limited internet access. I'll have limited/delayed ability to respond to inquiries until I return on Monday the 27th. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)