I saw that you wrote that the DoD names hadn't been posted to our article.
I think we have to do this with caution, because the DoD list is marred by many errors.
Someone asked on IRC; the verbose biography as posted earlier today had some personal information which was probably a bit more than intended (family details, etc) so I nuked the dubious revisions for them. Nothing too exciting, I'm afraid, pretty routine stuff... Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was around when these revisions were still online - I don't remember seeing anything in them that is not in the current version....??? Chrisahn22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty minor stuff by such standards, as I recall - personal names? - but a justifiable worry. No large chunks of text, though. Because of the way deletion works, I can't compare diffs to find out. But the chap in question was very worried, he seemed to have been talking to the other editor in question, and it didn't seem like too much of a big deal...
November 2009
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article DBpedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is DBpedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBpedia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's bad form to remove references, even if you think they are not reliable, during an AfD. Please let the other editors see the references and decide on their suitability themselves. An editor in the previous Afd thought the Atlantic Free Press reference was acceptable and so do I. By removing it, you may bias the AfD. Please put your thoughts about the sources in the AfD rather than removing them. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to thank you for you recent comment at the AFD, and agree that is sad that some folks believe in some of the most ludicrous concepts imaginable. But folks do have the right to believe in nonsense... and as long as the article does not promote the film's content as science or economic fact, and continues to state that it is simply a veiwpoint created by an animator, we will be okay. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'm frequently at Sankt Oberholz café in Berlin, whose ISP seems to be blocked. That's cool as far as I am concerned, but I'd still be able to edit when I'm logged in. I understand that I have to ask for IP block exemption. Could you please exclude me from this IP block? Thanks! P.S.: Here's the start of the message I'm seeing: Editing from 80.237.128.0/17 has been blocked (disabled) by DeltaQuad ... ˜˜˜˜
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks for the quick response, Daniel. I can't edit your talk page, so I hope you will see this.
I'd like go request it at WP:IPBE, but WP:IPBE#CONDITIONS points me to WP:APPEAL, which says the preferred way to appeal a block is to use the {{unblock}} template, but you can also contact the blocking administrator via email to request unblocking or alternatively submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Do I have to go through UTRS?
P.S. as for find another place to log on - of course there are other places, but I often work at this place. It would be sad if I couldn't edit WP for hours on end. wait for the block to expire - it expires in 2015... :-(
Chrisahn (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I'd like to request unblock again. See above. The reason given by Daniel Case - "We can't do it this way" - is extremely short. Did I do anything wrong? I'm an editor with good standing, and I'd like to be able edit Wikipedia even if others at the place where I work are Wikipedia vandals. :-) Chrisahn (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
Thanks a lot! I have never used proxies or made disruptive edits, and I won't. I installed HTTPS Everywhere to make sure that my account is safe in open Wifi networks like at the place where I work. Chrisahn (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tecumseh's Confederacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I know you're a bot and won't read this, but anyway... I'm just starting to use the visual editor. It's pretty cool, but in this case, it confused me. I thought I had selected a non-disambig page for the link, but apparently I hadn't. Thanks for pointing this out, DPL bot! Well done! Chrisahn (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
None of the passage you selected applies. what DOES apply is further down (keep reading): "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: It is still common to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." the portion removed "...or is Wiki just an ovary for Republicans and racist ideology??" doesn't even make sense, nor does it contribute to the improvement of the article. It's part gibberish (not making sense) and part rant. In short, it is completely unhelpful and removing it isn't out of line. Why do you feel it needs included? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the words aren't very civil or helpful, but I wouldn't call them gibberish. It's fairly easy to see that the writer probably meant "outlet" instead of "ovary". A few lines further down, there's this sentence: "-5000 miles from home on a public computer not logged on my name." Just as nonsensical. Should we delete it? I think not. Chrisahn (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I think so. His poorly worded, POV response to a comment made 4 years ago doesn't help at all. That comment should have been archived long ago except that nobody has set up an archive yet. The sentence provides no value whatsoever and solely expresses his political POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this exchange on the recent changes page. Considering how old this comment is, and that it is not a personal attack, it could have been left alone. Really, the best thing to do is to create an archive, add time-date stamps to the unsigned comments, and archive all these old discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Niteshift36: We have a different understanding of WP:TPO then. I again reverted the deletion initially made by an IP. This discussion is already about 50 times longer than the sentence in question, and I hope we can just leave it at that. Chrisahn (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we do have a different understanding. And if you can give me even the slightest value for that comment, I'll leave it alone. But "because it's there" doesn't cut it. I think I set up the archive correctly. (it's been a while) The bots should sweep it all up soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you can't use A3 on a properly constructed list. The purpose of a list is to contain links to articles, and that is what this does. One part of A3 is for articles that only contain links that are on the net - that is often a form of advertising or promotion. Lists of articles are a part of the indexing system on Wikipedia, and while some can be regarded as 'listcruft' (when they are lists for the sake of making lists, this one does bring together a load of articles with common factors. Peridon (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A3 applies to an article that "consists only of external links". There is no text, 27 external links, 11 links to other Wikipedia articles. While that's not "only" external links, it's over 70%. Chrisahn (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was right that it shouldn't be deleted, though. Thanks for sorting it out and removing the stuff that didn't belong. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good list. It should be organized by location at least. Directing the user to a (definitely incomplete) list of ALL group rapes (in alphabetical order?) is not nearly as relevant as how it was before, where it showed all of the ones in the UK. This should be reverted or at least sorted by location. Or perhaps a separate list for group rapes in Britain (and it's very likely that that list will grow). Patric.m (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker of English about that "10 GW of energy". Also I can read "3 million volts per meter", that's right, but still no info about amperes.--Carnby (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "10 GW of energy" is not related to language, but to physics. Watt is a unit of power, not of energy. Saying "10 GW of energy" is like saying "10 km/h of distance".
I agree that not all the info you added is already in the article, but the source you gave is very likely a self-published source and thus not a reliable source and not allowed. Sorry. If you find a better source (maybe something like Scientific American?), we could add the data to the article. It should probably be added to the existing data about amperes etc., which already has some info about amperes, but not about volts.
Also, the best place for discussing the content of an article is the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Lightning, where others will see the discussion. It's unlikely that others will join here on my user page. Feel free to create a new section on Talk:Lightning, or move this discussion (including my response) to a new section on that page. Chrisahn (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the speedy deletion; there are at least two credible claims to importance. Remember that this is a much lower bar than notability. Fences&Windows01:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About this edit summary: the edit is fine (why the IP wants to complicate things?) but in fact 16 is an element of every finite field, as is every integer. (Sometimes it has a simpler name, like "0".) --JBL (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The article finite field says "a finite field is a field that contains a finite number of elements". In that sense it's not true that every integer is an element of every finite field.
If I'm not mistaken, one could say that the elements of a finite field are the integers 0..pk-1. That's why I wrote that 16 is not an element of every finite field.
But if we treat a finite field as a set of congruence classes of integers, then every integer is an element of one of these congruence classes. In other words, every integer is an element of an element of any finite field. I guess that's what you meant, and of course I agree.
Or one could say that every finite field has an element for which "16" is a valid name (but that name does not necessarily designate the integer 16). Anyway, we basically agree. I'm just being picky. Chrisahn (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the integer 16 is an element of an element of every finite field, but what I meant is the last thing you wrote (that the symbol "16" represents a thing that is not an integer but is an element of the field -- I guess I shouldn't have said "as is every integer"). Anyhow, what's the internet for, if not for cat videos and being excessively pedantic about things that don't matter? :) Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Fight Against the Right. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf(talk)03:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I clearly indicated on each of my edits why I deleted that particular part of the content. There simply is no content on the page that passes Wikipedia's criteria. Also see this message from 2013. But ok, I won't blank it. Chrisahn (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Animal-industrial complex
I saw you (as did I) deleted some of the recent spamming of Animal–industrial complex being added to any and every "animal" article without regard to whether or not the topic is even relevant. The animal rights people have been expanding their "wallpapering" of Wikipedia. I can't quite pinpoint what is the policy that is being violated with this, but it sure doesn't seem right. Do you have any insight? Normal Op (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what's added where. I sympathize to some extent with the animal rights movement, but my opinions or beliefs are as irrelevant as anyone else's when we're editing Wikipedia. We must not let our opinions guide our editing, and we must not abuse Wikipedia trying to push our agenda, whatever it may be.
Regarding "See also" sections - MOS:SEEALSO says: The links in the "See also" section should be relevant. The word relevant links to MOS:BUILD, which says: Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" As far as I can tell, the concept animal–industrial complex is rather a fringe idea, so it almost never should be included in a "See also" section. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you wrote. The Animal-ind complx article is rather new and came on my radar because they added it to something on my watchlist. The article was very esoteric and almost impossible to understand. Now they've added it to the Template:Animal rights, and are adding that template plus "see alsos" to every article related to animals, especially animal production for consumption articles. I'm about ready to take it to the Village Pump to see what the rest of the WP community thinks about it all. I think I'll do some more trimming before I do that, though. Thanks for the input. Normal Op (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I love that search method and use it regularly to find all occurrences of, say, a nonRS website. I keep a sample search bookmarked in my web browser so it's always at my fingertips. Normal Op (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be deleted as a FRINGE topic. But no one can accuse us of not doing any BEFORE work (I put in my few hours work about 10 days ago). Maybe give it a few weeks and then nominate it for AfD if no better sources show up? Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring in Discrimination template
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the body of the Value stream management page, including references, now. I'm the author of the Project to Product book, which describes the body of work, and this page is all original content and good references describing the new discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatmik (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chrisahn !
I am User:Helppublic
Recently, one Article viz., Royapettah created by me was accepted as an Article for Creation. I am in the process of improving the article. Meanwhile one User: Rasnaboy, edits the same article. But I feel the User deletes most of the article Subheadings and data and copyedits from other articles (I feel so), and adds images related to articles such as Thousand Lights Mosque, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, and Royapettah Clock Tower, Chennai. So, I reverted the images and data irrelevant to it. Now, the User send a message to my talk page and blaming me as edit warring. In this regard, I request your suggestion. Thank you. --Helppublic (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chrisahn, I see you reverted my edit on Abuse of power. I'm working on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which uses a bot-generated list of links to disambiguation pages. Because Abuse of power links to Abuse of Power, it shows up on that list, even though the link to a DAB page in this case is intentional. That also means that different editors working on the project will keep needlessly looking for this DABlink in the future, because it stays on the list. However, making it link instead to Abuse of Power (disambiguation) stops the bot from reporting the link; it understands that the DABlink is intentional if it explicitly links to a '... (disambiguation)' page. That was the purpose of my edit. Hope that clears it up! Lennart97 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I suspected something like this, but didn't quite understand it. I reverted my revert and added a note so that others hopefully won't revert again. :-) -- Chrisahn (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not being picky ago, but since you seem to know about good talkpage behaviour: [1] this is not the way to do it. And since you ask me what I think: ... ask me then. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with my edit or my comment. I made a suggestion about conversions between bits and bytes. The suggestion was misunderstood, the thread got deranged into one of these age-old discussions about WP:COMPUNITS. I'd love to add this conversion functionality, but I'm afraid if people think this is about WP:COMPUNITS, it will never happen. That's why I politely asked to close the discussion. When I have time, I'll start a new approach for this suggestion. I archived the discussion. See Template_talk:Convert/Archive 2#Bits and bytes. Please don't add it to the talk page again. Thanks. -- Chrisahn (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know it is disputed, still you reverted. That is called WP:editwarring. (To be clear: you are not the one to decide about closing a discussion you are involved in -- started even). -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot editwar and discuss. So please restore the previous version, the one without your superiour edits. After that, you can argue. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Input Welcome on Discrimination talk page
Hey there Chrisahn. Any input you have is welcome on the Talk:Discrimination#Adding Species section since you've covered this a few months ago during the Discrimination Template discussion and were referenced as an editor by the OP of the section (and you've thanked me for my edits on the topic), you may have something to say on the topic, perhaps help resolve the dispute or anything. Delayed Happy New Year by the way. Sdio7 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added a slightly updated copy of my comment from Template talk:Discrimination. Of course, the common meaning of the word "discrimination" hasn't changed since that long and detailed debate in October 2020, so I hope we can put the new discussion to rest soon. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I think there's a misunderstanding. Please have a closer look at what I deleted here. Here's a quick timeline: Walrus had started a meta discussion, and I responded. Now Walrus removed my response, but kept Walrus's initial comments. It's fine with me to remove that meta discussion, but then we must remove all of it, not just my part. Removing only my comments is not OK. So I went ahead and removed the rest of that meta discussion. I simply finished what Walrus had started. Please unblock me. Thanks. As for the comments I had struck because they didn't provide any arguments, I already said here, here, and here that this was a misunderstanding and an error on my part. I won't strike such comments again.
Accept reason:
Unblocked--but with the caveat that "meta discussion" is not a term I subscribe too. I have faith that no further disruption will follow. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the discussion starting with your "note" was off-topic, and I agree. That whole discussion, including your initial "note", was off-topic. Now you removed my comments, but you kept your "note". That's not OK. I simply finished what you had started: after you had removed my response, I also removed your "note", because it's off-topic. That's all. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, I understand that this edit where you tried to remove my comment led to the block. VQuakr has also tried to explain this to you in the long thread. Yet you continue to claim that you did nothing wrong with your removal. In the unblock statement, you have not mentioned that you will no longer attempt to remove it if unblocked. Please clearly confirm, if you still intend to remove the note and complete your "unfinished" business. Walrus Ji (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrus Ji: When you deleted my comments from two sub-threads, you violated WP:TPO. (You tried to justify your action by WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, but you misread that policy, as I explained here.)
The two sub-threads were: 1. The thread about your note "Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself...". 2. The thread about your sentence "No more pussy footing, grab em". The subjects of these threads are quite different, so let's look at them separately.
1. The thread about your note "Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself...". I agree that the note and the thread it started is off-topic. It doesn't add anything useful to the discussion about a new page title. I can think of three ways to deal with it:
Remove it completely. I think that would be the best solution. (If you want, you can of course move its original content to your talk page and link to it.)
Restore it to its state before you deleted it. I think that would be the worst solution.
If you insist on keeping the off-topic note in the discussion about the title, I'll add a short comment to explain what happened. The whole sub-thread would then look like this:
Note: User:Chrisahn seems to have taken it upon himself and is actively striking off comments that he does not like. He is neither an admin nor has any basis to do that. Accordingly I have reverted him. Others might want to keep a check on his actions on this thread. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had struck (as in struck) three comments that were not sustained by arguments except per User X. I thought striking such comments was common practice, but I was wrong (striking is only allowed for duplicate comments by the same account, and a few other rare cases). Walrus Ji reverted these comments to their original state, which was the right thing to do. Thanks. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. The thread about your sentence "No more pussy footing, grab em": All comments (yours and mine) in that thread are on topic – we're talking about your arguments for the title "insurrection". Please restore this sub-thread to its state before your deletion. (If you want, you can move the extended discussion we've had here to your talk page and link to it.)
After we've put this whole mess behind us, I'll remove everything related to it from my user talk page. If you want to keep the content of #Meta discussion about my !vote or #Meta discussion about the note, you can move it to your user talk page. (Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding: Do not copy anything else from my talk page to yours.)
Comment from involved admin: I support unblocking, although I think Chrisahn should back off a bit and take a breather from that particular talk page. It's just a debate about a subtle non-momentus one-word change to the title of the article, in which the original title, the proposed title, or another alternative are all adequate. If the name changes or not, it isn't final, and isn't the end of the world. After a week or so, another debate will start. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I had already reduced my involvement with the discussion when that silly fight between Walrus and me started. And I agree with the rest of your comment. I've said something similar a few hours after the start of the debate:
We can't have another move request while this one is open, so I'm afraid we'll have to wait seven days until it fails, and then we can have a new request that meets WP:NCE and has a better chance of succeeding. Well, so be it. As you said, the current name isn't terrible. We can live with it for another 14 days.
@Drmies: Please explain why you blocked me. You wrote: "Disruptive editing--continued removal of comments from article talk page after the rules were explained." I understand that my striking of comments was an error and disruptive, but that had long been reverted when you blocked me. Later Walrus Ji removed several of my comments from the talk page because they were off-topic (I agree), keeping only an initial note (by Walrus) and a link to the original content (that Walrus had copied to my talk page). I simply removed the remaning note by Walrus (which was off-topic as well), but I kept the link to the original content. I don't think that was disruptive. EDIT: But it would certainly have been better if Walrus and I had tried to find a consensus on how to deal with that off-topic stuff before deleting each other's comments. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (The term "meta discussion" was introduced into this debate by Walrus to describe a thread that had supposedly gone off topic, so I used it as well. But as we saw here, it's hard to find consensus on whether something is a "meta discussion" or on topic...) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, in case you have not noticed yet,No other Admin or page watcher (among the hundreds I reckon) reverted my edit where I MOVED your WP:OFFTOPIC comments from the Article talk to your user talk. I take it as a consensus and silent agreement with my decision to MOVE the off topic comments. VQuakr even tried to explain it to you, why my comment that was left was not off topic. I humbly request you to drop this now and move on to more productive work. If you want any of my comment that are still on that page removed, you should ask an admin to do it for you, rather than doing it yourself. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr didn't state an opinion about whether any comments were off-topic. The conversation between VQuakr and me was about a different question. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Walrus Ji, you've pinged me a couple of times here; I don't think there is any need for you to keep doing that. I don't think there is anything for me to add to this section: more non-admin opinions here aren't going to help anyone, and the playful jab-trading tone I took earlier with Chrisahn isn't really appropriate to continue now that there has been admin action. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrus Ji: That's fine with me. If you change your mind and you want to add anything here in the next 24 hours, that's OK. But after that (starting 24 hours from now), DO NOT EDIT MY USER PAGES IN ANY WAY. In particular, DO NOT ADD ANY SECTIONS TO MY USER TALK PAGE. (Of course, I'll stay away from your user pages as well.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions violation
Your edit here is a violation of the discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump, which prohibit reinstating controversial edits within 24 hours after they have been challenged in the absence of consensus at talk. You are aware that they were challenged because you commented at one of the talk page discussions about them. Please self-revert, or you risk being blocked. {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: This whole situation is a mess. I saw this edit with the comment "This shouldn't be contentious but feel free to revert". I looked at other articles about former US presidents and saw they all followed the pattern "X is an American [occupation] who served as the [n]th president", so I thought it shouldn't be contentious to apply this pattern to Donald Trump as well.
When I started to edit the page, I saw the HTML comment saying we shouldn't edit the first sentence, so I had a quick look at the talk page – which is a bit of a mess itself... I think I found Talk:Donald Trump#Consensus #17, which looked like there wasn't a consensus, and either way it wasn't clear from that HTML comment what the consensus was supposed to have been, and the sentence had already been changed several times, so I went ahead with my edit.
I see from the recent thread above that you are aware of the 24-hour BRD page restriction at Donald Trump. You have again violated it with these two edits: 12 Please self-revert your reinstatement and engange in substantive discussion at talk. @Awilley, Sdkb, and Space4Time3Continuum2x:. SPECIFICOtalk14:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Please engage in a substantive discussion and provide evidence that Trump was personally involved in the negotiations. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will benefit from reviewing contemporaneous news accounts and subsequent outraged reaction. But nothing justifies aggressive editing and cutting wide swaths from this very intensively edited article when such cuts may be controversial. Fortunately, Awilley had the foresight to remove 1RR so that the damage can be mitigated. SPECIFICOtalk15:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this action on the part of the complainant is out of order. I was about to add, after the edit complained of, 'For that reason, I decline to accept the usefulness or validity of the exercise, and abstain from entering my name anywhere therein.' Qexigator (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multi page moves
Moving here to avoid spamming the article talk page; hope you don't mind. Disclaimer: I'm not a page move discussion expert. My understanding is that the intent behind multi page moves isn't really to address daughter articles. It so that if I'm a salad lover and want to propose moving Eruca vesicaria to Rocket, I'm sure to let the folks at Rocket know that we're discussing moving them to Rocket (flying thingy). You're not wrong that explicitly discussing daughter articles might be less work overall, but the bureaucratic overhead when we're already having so much trouble having productive discussion will kill any chances. Much better to move the parent article, then have a subsequent discussion on the daughter articles (if anyone even objects to a bold move of them). Everything from "more generally" onwards was more a most-mortem on the previous RM than directed at you. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AntiTrout
Here’s an AntiTrout (the polar opposite of a Trout)
For pointing out the WP:OR problems with a suggestion I made on the talk page of the article on the Jan 6 2021 Storming of the Capitol. Treat as if it is a reward for pointing out someone else did something silly in a constructive way (therefore the polar opposite of a trout.) 4D4850 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn: That would be good, except I can’t help look because of parental controls on my home tablet and my computer account, and the school controls on my school tablet. So I can’t help look at the aforementioned website. 4D4850 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to continue the discussion on 'DC Comics' I've further explained why it's not a redundant acronym on the RAS talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.202.230 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though we're on opposite sides of the move review, I thank you for your work on removing content "not directly related to Trump the person" from the article here. It's been something people, especially a select few opposing virtually all additions of content, have been saying for a while, but I've not had the time to evaluate and make changes and others have just gotten flak when they do so. Not to mention the article has been wayyyyyy over the size recommendations for years and any time someone wants to remove something, it gets re-added by someone. But maybe since you're curating it and not just removing things randomly (from what I've observed I see your reasoning exactly even though you didn't expand greatly on it in edit summaries) this will go better. Regardless, thanks for your work :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: Thanks! I must admit I gave up though. Some editors are spending a lot of time ensuring that nothing positive is said about Trump in the article Donald Trump. Even if almost everyone (media and politicans, including Trump's staunch opponents) agrees it's a positive and remarkable development, as in the case of the so-called Abraham Accords. These users also insist the article must say that "Trump actively supported the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen", although his policy in this regard hardly differed from Obama's, and our wording in Barack Obama is much weaker. It's a subtle but pervasive and persistent violation of WP:NPOV. It looks like Wikipedia is getting infected by the awful polarization of American politics. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and energy to do much against it. (It shouldn't matter, but I guess I have to say it: I have zero sympathy for Trump. I think he's an uneducated and morally corrupt narcissist. But we must not let our opinions guide us when we contribute to Wikipdia. We must adhere to WP:NPOV.) — Chrisahn (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I guess you should read WP:BURDEN. (Also, writing in ALL CAPS is generally frowned upon. It's perceived as "shouting". If you want to talk to me, don't use all caps. Thanks.) — Chrisahn (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the current infobox numbers for GDP per capita in Economy of India: $2,191 (nominal; 2021 est.), $7,333 (PPP; 2021 est.). The source for both is [2]. If you go to that page, click the "Select an indicator" button and select one of the "GDP per capita, current prices" options, you'll see the numbers "2.19 thousand" and "7.33 thousand", respectively. If you then click the link "IMF DataMapper, April 2021" in the top right corner of the chart, you will get to [3] and [4], respectively, and if you scroll down and export the "Selected Data" as an Excel file, you'll find the numbers 2190.901 and 7332.896, respectively, for 2021. If you believe these numbers are wrong or outdated, you'll have to provide a reliable source. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Track length of Should I Stay or Should I Go? by the Clash
Hi! Thanks for your message. I really appreciate it, because I wasn't sure whether your edit was simply vandalism – there are so many new accounts that try to sneak nonsense into articles... I saw that the YouTube video of the song on the official channel is 3:10 long and suspected that might have been the reason for your edit, but I wasn't sure. It would be great if you could mention such sources in your edit comment, or insert them into the article as a reference, i.e. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN1WwnEDWAM</ref>. Then other editors will know why you made the edit. Now for the content of the edit: The article is about the song, not the video, and I think we should provide the original length of the song as it was on the LP or single in 1982. I looked for reliable sources, but didn't find any. AllMusic says 3:09, Discogs says 3:06, but both aren't very reliable according to our list WP:RSP. I reverted the article back to 3:06, just because that's what we've had for years. But I'm not sure anymore what's correct. Maybe there isn't a correct answer – maybe the Clash didn't print the length of the song on any album or single cover back then, and any length information we may find is due to someone who wasn't involved with the recording at all trying to measure the length... So if you or someone else finds a reliable source, that would be great! Anyway – thanks for your message and happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. In the discussion you found, I gave a detailed explanation that the available sources are rather weak and inconclusive. Until we find new sources, I don't think we should make any claim about what Kosovo's government has done or intends to do in regard to OIC. If you find new WP:reliable sources, feel free to add to that discussion you found. (My talk page isn't the best place for further discussion of the issue.) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just tell me that if the mathematical work is useful and also published, then why we can't add it? and it doesn't even has any flaws! John2900 (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. You don't seem to understand what arXiv is. 1. It is not an official research platform of Cornell University. 2. It's unlikely that arXiv will accept your content. 3. arXiv is not a WP:RS. See WP:ARXIV. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was an article on date formats by country. But I'm not sure that Mali counts. There's a definite requirement for majority native-English-speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ); and the others are simply whoever got there first. Thanks for checking through my edits. Would you like to use the script? Tony(talk)04:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add that sentence, you should add a section at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely. – Briefly: 1. Clashes between protesters and police are already mentioned in the previous sentence. 2. The information you added doesn't seem relevant. 3. There are three Fox News entries on WP:RS/P. – I won't respond again here, but feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely, and I'll respond there. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did change "Anthony" to "Casey" in the next sentence, as I think "Dominic Casey said Baez admitted to an affair with Casey" doesn't actually risk confusion. (Though if you want to reinsert "Anthony" and add "Casey" before it, that works too.)--Jerome Frank Disciple14:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! The article isn't quite consistent, but in most cases a lone "Anthony" refers to Caylee, so your solution makes more sense than the previous version. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any errors please feel free to fix or let me know! (I'll also take another look when I get a chance.) It definitely should be consistent. When I first came across the article, it was pretty thoroughly mixed usage (various passages would use: 1. "Casey" and "Caylee", 2. "Anthony" and "Caylee", or 3. "Casey" and "Anthony"). If I recall correctly, I initially thought WP:IAR was warranted for "Anthony" and "Caylee", but then I came across various discussions that, by community consensus, rejected alterations to WP:SAMESURNAME for minors (even very young minors), so I tried to ensure everything was "Casey" (for the mother) and "Anthony" (for the article subject, the daughter).--Jerome Frank Disciple17:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it feels a bit surprising when the given name refers to an adult and the surname to a child. But it's consistent and makes sense. I just fixed a few more spots where "Anthony" referred to the mother. There may be more, I haven't checked the whole article. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! I think it's a little unusual—probably not the norm for what our reliable sources usually do—but it doesn't bother me enough to want to push the issue or flaunt the apparent community consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple18:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring at Discrimination based on skin color
I applaud your work at Entropy (Information theory) that removes content that is not sourced. The maths and comp sci articles that are near to entirely WP:OR—going on line after line, paragraph after paragraph, etc. without a citation—are unusable as teaching material. (We hold WP to it's word, that its content is only as good as its sourcing, see General Disclaimer. So we simply do not use articles that are without sources; while an expert might arrive and say "All this is fine.", to our reading, WP encyclopedic philosophy is not based on trust in expertise of its editors.) Probably preaching to the choir. Just want to encourage your bold efforts in support of reliably sourced content. Cheers. A professor, once. 73.8.193.28 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. You are canvassing around a post that is soliciting a number of articles to be targeted inorder to go around Wikipedia rules about sources and MOS:ETHNICITY and it needs to stop. oncamera (talk page)11:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the users who were mentioned by name in the tumblr posting, because it might affect their work on Wikipedia, and the posting even mentioned legal actions. If any other users had been mentioned in the post, I would have pinged them as well, regardless of their position or opinion. I have no opinion on the subject of ethnicity, because I know next to nothing about it. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tumblr post mentions Talk:Lily Gladstone and links to it rather prominently. I added a section on that talk page because the tumblr post might affect discussions on that page. You deleted the section. That's ok, I don't really mind. Maybe the project page is the better place for this stuff. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand what you meant by "DLB", but I guess you mean the Bluesky user "Darcie Little Badger" who shared the tumblr link. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Alalch E. has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!
I would have reverted all edits by that IP, but I don't have rollback privileges, and I'm to lazy to revert them all manually. But usually these IPs get blocked quickly, and a rollbacker (or someone less lazy, I'm not sure) cleans up after them. Chrisahn (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was the AI answer really useless?
I understand the idea that simply filling the discussion with long AI-gen content will make it worse, so I kind of agree with your delete. Nonetheless, when I read the answer, I find it nicely and in the end also concisely capable of resuming the contents. The point I highlight is that while AI is not good in critical "thinking", it definitely is in summarizing. Once the content reaches large, repetitive, redundant proportion, distilling it is something the AI does quite well. I feel it is important to critically examine it, as I did before posting, and as Sirfboy did, but also the criticism must be strongly based. The case of Sirfboy's answer shows that the AI was more objective in assessing the facts illustrated in the discussion that he was. I would appreciate your comment and point of view on this, and in the meanwhile, I will avoid more AI-gen content. Thank you. AlanGiulio (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the AI is objective. For example, it statesmultiple major outlets provide exactly the sort of interpretive coverage that WP:PRIMARYNEWS calls “secondary.” (I faithfully copied the AI's repulsive violations of MOS: STRAIGHT and MOS:LOGICAL.) But as I said in the discussion, there are several definitions of secondary sources in PRIMARYNEWS, and they're not exact. I'm pretty sure the AI has no idea what PRIMARYNEWS actually says, because it can't click on links and it probably hasn't been trained to "understand" what PRIMARYNEWS refers to. I mean, whoever trained the AI certainly fed it lots of Wikipedia article content. But Wikipedia policies? Not so much.
I assume you used the whole wikitext source of the page as the AI's input. Is that correct? I think the AI basically just processed the content and tried to create a coherent synopsis. Since the majority of participants argued for keep, that's what the AI does. And since even current LLMs basically still work like Markov chains, I guess there's a tendency to fall into a "track" of "reasoning" that's relatively straight and simple, and therefore one-sided. Of course, the AI doesn't know that this isn't a majority vote. If a human admin closed the discussion with a summary similar to what the AI produced, I'd say that admin didn't do a good job of listening to both sides and weighing the pro and con arguments. (I may be biased though, since I lean towards the merge position, and the AI basically reproduced the keep arguments and dismissed everything else.)
Just out of curiosity: Which AI did you use? What did you use as the input? What was your prompt? I have a request: Could you try again, but use a prompt that emphasises that this isn't a majority vote and the AI should weigh the arguments of all sides? I'd like to see if the AI can be prompted to produce something that's closer to what I'd expect from a human Wikipedia admin. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About Keegan-Michael Key‘s music videos
Hello! Keegan-Michael Key appears in the You Don‘t Have To Hurt No More music video by Mint Condition. I believe you have linked the video, in which the time stamp is 2:09, where he appears on a portrait as Antonio Alexander II.
I suspect he appears throughout the whole video as the father of the family.
Thanks for reporting these IPs, which I have blocked for 1 week. Certainly they seem to be the same user or editing in coordination. [7] If you see any further IPs/users editing in the same manner, please also report at AIV, but also feel free to contact me directly. Thanks again. TigerShark (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone replace 20th Century Fox with Warner Bros. on the Monuments Men?
This ridiculous replacement on The Monuments Men (film) Fox was replaced with Warner Bros. for simply "warner bros." not only that but on Kiss of the Dragon 20th Century Fox was replaced with Paramount Pictures where do people get this unsourced information? the Japanese poster for that film does have the Paramount logo on it but I think they are acting as an independent distributor and the film is not of Japanese origin. Editoman (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell if a film's distributor actually co-produced a film depending on what credits are used or if it's copyrighted to them on Universal films that use "A Universal Picture" I would list them as a production company for films that use "A Universal Release" on a wiki page that has a list of Universal films would put down "distribution only" for those films however The Fly (1986 film) is copyrighted to 20th Century Fox rather than Brooksfilms in the closing credits though Fox only distributed the film I find it stupid how usually a distributor is rarely listed as a production company yet on a list of their films they are usually said to co-produce it with their production companies. sometimes it's the other way round on Death Sentence (2007 film) 20th Century Fox is listed as a production company though List of 20th Century Fox films (2000-2020) says "produced by Hyde Park Entertainment and Baldwin Entertainment Group" rather than "co-production with" weird enough two years ago 20th Century Fox had a distribution deal with HPE for the North American film market but on Death Sentence they are credited as presenter. Editoman (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
tracking parameters
Hello. I saw the ping a few minutes ago. I rarely log into that account. Similar to ?__twitter_impression=true, are there more tracking parameters that we could remove programmatically? —usernamekiran (talk)17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This edit by the bot had caught my eye because it inserted the port number :443 into the URL, which is unnecessary since it's the default for https URLs. That's why I cleaned it up, and while I was at it, I also removed the tracking parameter. I don't know if there are other common tracking parameters that the bot should remove. I also checked a few other edits by the bot and didn't find another case where it inserted an unnecessary port number. All good, as far as I can tell. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2031
Explain why 2029 was created in 2002 (27 years apart). Then, explain why I can’t create 2031 (6 years apart). I don’t want to hear the same excuse (that ‘This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources’). Diegg24 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse, it's a reason. If you disagree, take it to Draft talk:2031, don't just move the page into main space. Wikipedia is built on and by consensus. That's sometimes slow and can be annoying, but that's how it is, and it generally works well. You'll have to get used to it. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there are other pages that include row spanning (and not just on release dates) that no one touches but yet when i do it you seem to take notice. (yes I'm saying just you cos no one else seems to have an issue with it as you said) please help me understand and be 100% honest because i hate fighting you. so why is rowspanning allowed on other pages yet the ones i do em on you take issue with.
It's not just me. Several others have asked you again and again to stop adding rowspans to non-year columns. (The fact that other articles contain such rowspans doesn't change the rules. These articles should be fixed as well.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you do not represent other editors, you are the only one activtlely going out of their way to prevent me from rowspanning so please stop with that no one else has execpt you cos it's not just you're stopping me from rowspanning which is dumb but thats one thing you're picking on me when others do it so whats the problem if i upset you be honest and i'll stop doing what i'm doing. Oh and just for clairty the pages are fixed. 89.240.215.24 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: It's not just me. Others have also repeatedly reverted your rowspan stuff. Wikipedia has rules. One of them is WP:FILMOGRAPHY: Use of rowspan formatting in "Year" columns is acceptable, but rowspan formatting should not be used in other columns. If you break the rules, others revert your edits and ask you to stop. If you keep breaking the rules, you are blocked. That's how Wikipedia works. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay clearly you're not seeing the damn problem and you refuse to answer my question so i'm gonna erase this conversation and instead of letting you sully my name and stalk me, i'm gonna fight to make my case against you because you can't get away with this horrible act of abuse.
ironic you didn’t like being honest so thanks for nothing can’t wait to revoke your editing rights. Also I have this thing called a life get one it’ll do you the world of wonders 89.240.215.24 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you just gave me the key i needed so i will say good luck to you. (not that i need it but thought i'd extend it you seeing as you're so brilliant) 89.240.215.24 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI on ping template
The ping template will only notify users if it's used in an edit where the post is signed. Your edit at [8] didn't do that, so they weren't ping. Just do a new reply to ping them and make sure you sign! Ravensfire (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know why you haven’t replaced content_license = with a license other than proprietary. Is it because that was the correct license type and you didn’t approve for your own personal reasons? Twillisjr (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, first of all apologies, somehow or another an unintended rogue random few letters crept into my edit.
The more substantive reasons for my edit were that the first change (having recently grown tired of acting, and switched to screenwriting … to … having recently grown tired of acting, he switched to screenwriting), I'm afraid the first sentence is both ungrammatical and unclear. What is the 'and' referring back to? "Having begun to feel in a certain way and changed his routine"? The second part should be a consequence of the first, not an addition to it … "Having begun to feel fat, he started exercising more."
The second change (Having lived in the rural parts of states such as Texas and Wyoming, Sheridan set the series in Montana and the first scripts in Livingston.). This sentence is very unclear and fairly clumsy. What are states such as these two? The reference might be clear to a US citizen who knows all about Texas and Wyoming, but to the rest of us, it's fairly unhelpful (agricultural states? states with a particular history?). Maybe what is meant is something like "Having lived in several rural areas/States, Sheridan set the series in Montana".
I would add that properly speaking, it is the early episodes,(or storylines) rather than the early scripts which are set in Livingston. Scripts aren't usually 'set' anywhere except on the page, but the stories in them are.
I hasten to add that I know nothing about this series or its setting. I was simply responding to (what to me) seemed unclear text. Pincrete (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message! I mostly agree.
Regarding the first change: The current full sentence is: In 2013, Sheridan began work on the series, having recently grown tired of acting, and switched to screenwriting. I think that's grammatically correct (having recently grown tired of acting is a parenthetical phrase), but it's logically incorrect nonetheless. It implies that he started working on the series and then switched to screenwriting, which doesn't make sense.
The sentence got mangled over time. A better version can be found in the Development section: In 2013, having grown tired of acting, Taylor Sheridan began work on the series and writing screenplays.
Regarding the second change: The current sentence is: Having lived in the rural parts of states such as Texas and Wyoming, Sheridan set the series in Montana and the first scripts in Livingston. That also got mangled, and again there's a better version in the Development section: Having lived in the rural parts of states such as Texas and Wyoming, he set the series in Montana and went about writing the first scripts in Livingston. Important info got lost in the lead version of the sentence...
I also agree that we should remove "states such as". If the source [9] said something like that, we could keep it, but unless I missed something, the source only says he lived in these two states. The expression "states such as" implies there were others, which is incorrect / unsourced.
In conclusion: Feel free to redo your changes, or to improve these mangled sentences in some other way. I mostly reverted your changes because of these random letters. I thought maybe you had clicked publish by accident, or your cat had walked over your keyboard. :-) Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TPO, Disruption, and the difference between them
When you edited contributions of two users at Template talk:Convert to remove some off-topic images (diff), that was with the positive goal of improving the discussion by removing irrelevant content that you felt encumbered the discussion unnecessarily. The removal however was contrary to WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments (commonly known as WP:TPO) which says,
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.
Your intention was good, and I would have removed them upon request as I agree with you that they were a distraction. However, you went about it the wrong way because there was already mention of the images later on in the discussion, which became nonsensical after your edit. That was compounded by the fact that you left no inline explanation for your edit or request for redaction. The guideline:
If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note.
The right way to do it would have been simply to ask for removal, or at the very least, accompany your bold edit with an explanation. Nevertheless, I did not see any need to restore the images because you were right that the discussion was better off without them, but I did feel the need to add a redaction notice (diff) for the benefit of any readers arriving at the discussion afterward, to explain what otherwise might seem incomprehensible or a broken narrative.
You requested removal of the redaction notice (thank you for asking) but that wouldn't work for reasons already explained and I was hopeful we could just get on with the template discussion. The TPO edit itself was a relatively minor peccadillo, with no need for further comment as far as I was concerned.
That should have been the end of it, with the discussion about the template now front and center, and the offending images gone. Unfortunately, that wasn't the end of it. Things went downhill in these 5 edits
with a flurry of additional clearly off-topic edits including WP:POINTy, aggressive comments about being dragged to ANI for TPO, and inviting deletion of the comments themselves (diff), once more drowning the discussion about a conversion template in irrelevant nonsense.
The difference between the two is that whereas your original TPO was made in good faith with the sole intention of improving the discussion, the latter series of edits had no purpose other than to restore all the images you recently found so offensive, to declaim about how you wuz dun wrong, and to make a point by drowning the template discussion in even more irrelevant dreck. Those edits constitute WP:DISRUPTION as they had no purpose other than to disrupt the discussion. I have collapsed them.
I have no beef with you; the TPO issue would have been quickly forgotten, but disruption is more serious. You have been called out for disruption before, and attracted the attention of administrators and a previous block, but that was years ago. For your own sake, I hope that you will avoid this kind of pointy, disruptive response going forward. I sincerely hope that this will now be the end of this, and that that much encumbered discussion can now proceed (or as is more likely, quiesce) in relative peace and quiet. Thanks, and happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot Sorry for the late reply. That whole affair was rather unfortunate. It seems that my removal of the images irritated you, and I'm sorry about that. I should have found a better way to remove these distractions from the discussion. I also think you could have chosen a better way to react. For example, you wrote "there was already mention of the images". That's correct, but the mention was rather fleeting and didn't really have anything to do with the subject of the discussion. The notes that you then added in the middle of the discussion were even more disruptive and distracting than the images. I really meant it when I said my own comments should be deleted, since they didn't add anything useful to the actual discussion. Just like the images and your notes. After I deleted the images, you could have simply deleted your fleeting mention of the images, and the discussion would have been back on track. In a nutshell I'd say that I followed WP:TALK in spirit, but not in letter, whereas you did the opposite. But I guess I should have simply left the discussion after that. I was annoyed, and my additional comments were somewhat sarcastic. (I thought they were written in a similar style as the image captions. I didn't mean to be aggressive. But I guess that didn't come across.) Anyway... What do we learn from this? We should try to not be annoyed by actions of other editors, but if we are, we should take a deep breath, maybe take a break, and think about what's the best way forward that causes the least disruption. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chrisahn. No worries about the timing; RL take precedence. My only intent in writing to you was to point out a guideline so that you don't inadvertently fall into a pattern that could cause you grief later if you are not aware of it. To some of your points:
It seems that my removal of the images irritated you.
No, not at all; not in the slightest. I am merely trying to explain to you that the Talk page guidelines have recommendations about how to keep discussions orderly, in terms of what may be removed if another editor wrote it (almost nothing), and under what circumstances (some rare exceptions), so that you will not wade into another situation like this unawares going forward. But rather than accept it, you appear to be doubling down, making another suggestion also in contravention to the guideline:
After I deleted the images, you could have simply deleted your fleeting mention of the images, and the discussion would have been back on track.
Absolutely not; that would have compounded the original mistake of altering another user's comment, with a similar mistake; exactly what the guideline is trying to prevent, and a classic two wrongs don't make a right situation. Redaction would have been the proper course of action at the outset.
What do we learn from this? We should try to not be annoyed by actions of other editors,
I am not annoyed, just trying to help you understand the procedures here. I can point out that one shouldn't delete comments by other users, but cannot stop you from doing so, as long as you understand that it is in in contravention to the guideline, and could be seen as disruptive by other editors, and you don't want that, right?
we should take a deep breath, maybe take a break, and think about what's the best way forward that causes the least disruption.
The way forward that causes the least disruption is to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which were developed by the community over many years in order to encourage smooth and productive operation of the online encyclopedia, and I encourage you to follow them. But I cannot force you to do so, and I won't get irritated (or likely even notice) if you do it again. I might get sad, though, or more likely, puzzled, if you end up facing administrative consequences down the road for continuing that pattern of behavior after having had the guideline pointed out to you along with an explanation of why it is helpful to the community to follow it. But in the end, it's up to you. If you have any questions about the guideline specifically, feel free to ask below, or at the guideline Talk page, or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. (edit conflict) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Absolutely not" – You absolutely could have done that. It wouldn't have caused any problems. It wouldn't have made Wikipedia worse in any way. Think about it. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we agree to disagree. I will choose my path, which leans strongly to following WP:P&G unless there is an overwhelming reason not to, just as you will choose yours. I wish you all the best, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As I said, it seems to me that you lean towards following the letter of our policies, which may occasionally mean that you're not following their spirit. In this case, your response to my deleting the images made the actual discussion much less readable. I really think you should think about whether that was the best way to deal with my transgression. Anyway, happy editing. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing in relation to Oasis ?
Please read the bands page. Zak Starkey was not an official member of the band if you viewed their homepage you would see this why did you undo all my hard work ?. 92.251.139.43 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As several other editors have told you before: You have to follow the rules. See WP:V, WP:RS, etc. "Please read the bands page", "if you viewed their homepage" etc. is not enough. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary is unacceptable. The whole thread escalates in a way that it shouldn't have. I know it can be frustrating here some times. Please remember you can always walk away from this for a few moments if you get too frustrated, or take things to dispute resolution or seek help from someone else. --tony21:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I got really pissed off by the stupid behavior of that IP. But I'll walk away for now. Thanks for the trout. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn, I mean this in the most friendly way possible: it's probably best if you step away from the discussion with that IP editor, on their talk page, on the article talk page, and everywhere else. Nothing will implode if you ignore that person and move on to other things -- other editors will help the editor or the pages they're editing. The juice ain't worth the squeeze. tony23:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Traitor". That's a new one. Made me laugh. Thanks. But seriously: You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works, and you need to stop. You didn't even start a legitimate discussion. You wrote a few words on a talk page, and without waiting for a response, you went right back to your disruptive behavior. I'm sorry that I used rather rude words, but your behavior was extremely rude. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
The WikiEditor toolbar now includes its keyboard shortcuts in the tooltips for its buttons. This will help to improve the discoverability of this feature. [10]
The search bar on the Minerva skin (mobile) has been updated to use the same type-ahead search component that is used on the Vector 2022 skin. There are no changes in search functionality but there are minor visual changes. Specifically, the close-search button has been changed from an "X" to a back arrow. This helps to distinguish it from the other "X" button that is used to clear any text. [11]
Editors on some wikis will see a new toggle for "Group results by page" on watchlist, related changes, and recent changes pages. This is an A/B experiment that is planned to start on August 11, and will run for 3–6 weeks on the Bengali, Chinese, Czech, French, Greek, Portuguese, and Urdu Wikipedias. The experiment will examine how making this feature more discoverable might affect editors' ability to find the edits they are looking for. [12]
The multiwiki datasets of Unicode data have been moved to Category:Unicode Module Datasets on Wikimedia Commons, to follow the idea of "One common data source, multiple local wikis". Most wikis have been updated to use the Commons version. You can ask questions at the talkpage. [13]
Lua code can add warnings when something is wrong, by using the mw.addWarning() function. It is now possible to add more than one warning, instead of new warnings replacing old ones. If you maintain a Lua module that used warnings, you should check it still works as expected. [14]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Later this week, people who are logged-in and have the "Discussion tools" Beta Feature enabled will gain the ability to "Thank" individual comments directly from talk pages, rather than needing to navigate to page history. Learn more about this feature. [15]
An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki on 12 August and on English Wikipedia 14 August for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September. [16]
An A/A test to measure the baseline for reader retention was launched 12 August using Experimentation Lab. This measures the percentage of users who revisit a wiki after their initial visit over a 14-day period. No visual changes are expected. The experiment will run through 31 August. [17]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used by TemplateStyles was updated. For example: width: fit-content; ruby-align; relative units such as lh; and custom strings in list-style-type. These improvements are a Community Wishlist wish. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
On large wikis, the default time period to display edits from, within the Special:RecentChanges page, has been changed from 7 days to 1 day. This is part of a performance improvement project. This should have no user-facing impact due to the quantity of edits on these wikis. [33]
Wikimedia Commons videos were not shown in the Videos tab in Google Search. The problem was investigated and reported to Google who have now fixed the issue. [35][36]
Two fields of the recentchanges database table are being removed. rc_new and rc_type are being removed in favor of rc_source. Queries to these older fields will start to fail starting this week and developers should use rc_source instead. These older fields were deprecated over 10 years ago and should not be in use. This is part of work to improve the performance and stability of queries to the recentchanges table. [38]
The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: support for new languages in MediaWiki and translatewiki; the start of the Language Onboarding and Development project to help support the growth of new and small wikis; updates on research projects; and more.
Meetings and events
The next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, August 29th at 15:00 UTC. This week's meeting will cover: the Avro keyboard developers from Wikimedia Bangladesh, who were recently awarded a national award for their contributions to this keyboard; and other topics.
"Somebody to Love" - "Your mind is so full of ___"
The edit of the line ("your mind is so full of BREAD->RED") in the re-recording section of this page was done upon re-listening to both versions of this song & concluding that her fast speech, intense instrumentals, recording quality & the word being preceded by the word "of" lead to the mistake that Grace Slick is saying "bread" instead of "red." I also sourced genius.com & Spotify, which uses musixmatch for it's lyrics, for the revision which both stated the line as "Your mind, your mind is so full of red." Jamesies76 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit again. Here's what you should do:
1. You should have read my edit summary. It said: Undid revision 1282650999 by Jamesies76 (talk) See edit summary of Special:Diff/1221381637. If you think that's a mistake, please discuss. Thanks!
3. You should have read the page linked in that edit summary. It says: Slick originally entitled the song “Mind Full of Bread.”
4. At least two editors disagree with you. You should not simply reinstate your edit.
5. When someone says "please discuss", you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, where others can join in. In this case, Talk:Somebody to Love (Jefferson Airplane song). If you start a discussion on a user's talk page, nobody else will find it.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Editing team is working on a new check: Paste check. This check informs newcomers who paste text into Wikipedia that the content might not be accepted. This check is an effort to increase the likelihood that the new content people are adding to Wikipedia is aligned with the Movement's commitment to offering information under a free content license. This check will soon be tested at a few wikis. If your community is interested in this test, please tell us in this task, or contact the team.
When browsing a wiki (like en.wikipedia.org), the software responds in one of two ways: a desktop page, or a redirect to a mobile version on an "m" domain (like en.m.wikipedia.org). Over the next three weeks, MediaWiki will start displaying the mobile version to mobile devices directly on the standard domain, without this redirect. This change does not affect existing m-dot URLs, or the "Desktop view" opt-out. Learn more. [40]
When an edit changes the categories of a page, the changes to the category membership counts are now happening asynchronously. This improves the speed of saving edits, especially when moving many pages to or from the same category, and reduces the risk of site outages, but it means that the counts can show outdated information for a few minutes. [41]
Edits on Wikidata to qualifiers (properties and values) and references (properties and values) in a Wikidata item statement will now not add entries to the RecentChanges or Watchlist pages on all other Wikis. This is a temporary change to improve performance while other solutions are created. Wikidata's own pages remain unchanged. Learn more. [42][43]
Japanese-language wikis have had a major upgrade to the way that search works. The new search should generally give more accurate and more relevant search results. [44]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
References lists that are made using the <references/>tag will now automatically display with columns in Vector 2022 when readers are using its 'standard' settings for text-size and page-width. [45]
Starting in the week of October 6, on small wikis and medium wikis that have the CampaignEvents extension enabled, all autoconfirmed users will be able to use Event Registration as an organizer. No changes will be made for large wikis unless requested in Phabricator. This change is being made to make it easier for more people to use Event Registration, especially on wikis that are less likely to have policies related to the Event Organizer right. Learn more.
Users that search using regular expressions (regex) can now use additional features including:
for the intitle: keyword: metacharacters for start-of-line (^) and end-of-line ($) anchors [46]
for both intitle: and insource: keywords: shorthand character classes for digits (\d), whitespace (\s), and word characters (\w); and escape codes for line feed (\r), newline (\n), tab (\t), and unicode (e.g. \uHHHH). [47]
When you search for text that looks like an IP, the system will now show search results. It used to take you to the contributions for that IP instead of showing search results. [48]
View all 24 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed that affected users who used the page-tabs to switch from wikitext editing of a section into the visualeditor. [49]
Updates for technical contributors
The MediaWiki Interfaces team is redesigning the Wikimedia REST API Sandbox with Codex. If you have feedback on improvements for the API documentation or what makes developer experiences smooth (or frustrating), you’re invited to join an upcoming discovery interview, or leave feedback onwiki. Learn more.
Edits to Wikidata aliases (an alternative name for an item or a property) will now be shown in RecentChanges and Watchlist entries on other wikis less often, reducing unnecessary notifications. This will reduce the overall quantity of 'noisy' entries. Wikidata's own pages remain unchanged. Learn more. [50]
The new Unicode 17.0 version has been released. The datasets on Commons for the Module:Unicode data have been updated. Wikipedias that do not use the Commons datasets should either update their own data or switch to the Commons datasets.
Users of the Wikimedia Enterprise Structured Contents endpoints can now access Parsed Tables. The new Parsed Tables feature extracts and represents Wikipedia tables in structured JSON. This improves machine accessibility as part of the Structured Contents initiative. Structured Contents output is freely available through the On-demand API, or through Wikimedia Cloud Services.
A dataset of English Wikipedia biographical information from Wikimedia Enterprise has been published on Kaggle, for evaluation and research. This provides structured data from more than 1.5 million biographies, including birth and death dates, education, affiliations, careers, awards, and more (from a June 2024 snapshot).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
On September 24th at 15:00 UTC, all Wikimedia sites users will experience a brief read-only period due to a scheduled datacenter server switchover. The Wikimedia Foundation's Site Reliability Engineering (SRE) team will redirect all traffic from one primary server to its backup. You can listen to the switchover using the "Listen to Wikipedia" tool, where you will hear edits stop for a few minutes during the read-only phase, then resume. This twice-yearly datacenter server switchover ensures reliability by testing the backup datacenter, so that our sites can stay online even if the primary datacenter fails. You can read more about the process on the Diff blog.
Updates for editors
Editors of 60 more Wiktionaries will soon be able to call functions from Wikifunctions and integrate them into their pages. A function takes one or more inputs and transforms them into a desired output, like adding numbers, converting miles to meters, calculating elapsed time, or declining a word into a case. They will join the other 65 Wiktionary language editions, which already have access to embedded Wikifunctions calls. Later this year, plans are in place to expand to more Wiktionaries and the Incubator.
A new parser function has been added: {{#contentmodel}}. Template editors and admins can use it to get the localized or canonical name of the content model of a specific page. The function makes it easier to create and edit system messages, such as MediaWiki:editinginterface, even when you switch types of pages, like wiki, JavaScript, CSS or JSON page. [51]
Adding or editing a DISPLAYTITLE for an article using VisualEditor will no longer be broken. Editors who use VisualEditor mode to modify the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} would no longer have the literal text "DISPLAYTITLE" or its localized variant added to their articles. A list of pages that may have been affected and might need cleanup is documented in this ticket.
Beta users of the Wikipedia Android app can now try the redesigned Activity tab, which replaces the Edits tab. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.
Wikifunctions users can now import many essential facts involving geo-coordinates, quantities and time values from Wikidata. This is made possible by the creation of Wikifunctions types for these values, which makes them available for use by functions in Wikifunctions. Learn more about how this works in this video and Wikifunctions' August 1 newsletter (for quantities) and August 22 newsletter (for geo-coordinates).
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
A major software upgrade has been made to Phabricator. The update introduces performance improvements, a refreshed search interface, enhancements to Maniphest task search, updates to user profile pages and project workboards, new Herald automation features, as well as general text input, mobile experience improvements and more. [52]
Updates for editors
The Community Tech team will release the new Community Wishlist extension on October 1, that will improve the way wishes will be submitted. The new extension will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances. The old system will be retired. There will be a brief period of downtime while the extension is deployed and wishes are migrated to the new system. You can read more about this in the latest update or you can consult the current documentation on MediaWiki.
As announced on Diff blog, the production trial of the hCaptcha service for bot detection has begun. The trial is currently using hCaptcha to protect account creation on Chinese, Persian, Portuguese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Turkish Wikipedias, where it will replace our existing CAPTCHA (FancyCaptcha). The goal with the trial is to better block bots while also improving usability and accessibility for users who encounter CAPTCHA challenges.
The CampaignEvents extension has been deployed to Wikimedia Commons. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. On Commons, anyone who is a registered user can use it as an event participant. To use it as an organizer, someone needs to have the event organizer right.
On wikis using the Mentorship system, communities can now opt experienced editors out of Mentorship through Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship. Within this setting, communities may define thresholds, based on edit count and account age, to decide when an editor is considered experienced enough to no longer receive Mentorship. [53]
The Editing Team and the Machine Learning Team are working on a new check for newcomers: Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits, using artificial intelligence. We invite volunteers to review the first version of the Tone language model for the following languages: Arabic, Czech, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Dutch, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, Farsi, Italian, Norwegian, Romanian and Latvian. Users from these wikis interested in reviewing this model are invited to sign up at MediaWiki.org. The deadline to sign up is on October 3, which will be the start date of the test.
The rollout of multiblocks had the side effect that non-active block logs may have been shown on Special:Contributions and on blocked users' user and user_talk pages. This issue will be fully resolved in a few days. As part of the fix, messages prefixed with sp-contributions-blocked-notice will be removed and replaced with those prefixed with blocked-notice-logextract in a few weeks. Please help translate the new messages and update any local overrides if needed.
There was a bug with links added using visual editor if they included characters such as [ ] | after the fragment identifier (#). They were not encoded properly creating an incorrect link. This has been fixed. [54]
One new wiki has been created: a Wikiquote in Malay (q:ms:) [55]
View all 21 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the User Info Card now displays currently active global lock/blocks. [56]
Updates for technical contributors
Later this week, editors using Lua modules will be able to use the mw.title.newBatch function to look up the existence of up to 25 pages at once, in a way that only increases the expensive function count once.
A new Unsupported Tools Working Group has been formed as part of ongoing efforts to collectively determine technical work priorities, similar to the Product & Technology Advisory Council (PTAC). The working group will help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. For the first cycle, the group will be prioritizing an unsupported Wikimedia Commons tool.
