User talk:R'n'B/Archive 28

Latest comment: 4 years ago by BD2412 in topic A barnstar for you!
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 35

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFirToBeFree
  AkhilleusAthaenaraJohn VandenbergMelchoirMichaelQSchmidtNeilNYoungamerican😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

"Rocha, disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rocha, disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Rocha, disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A Rumtopf for you!

 

Best wishes for 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yummy! Thanks, and same to you! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Tech News: 2020-03

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mariä Himmelfahrt Bleialf ./. Düsseldorf-Flingern

Du hast im vergangenen Jahr zahlreiche Bilder von der Kategorie "Mariä Himmelfahrt Bleialf" nach "Mariä Himmelfahrt Düsseldorf-Flingern" verschoben. Einen Teil habe ich schon rückgängig gemacht. Es wäre gut, wenn Du auch noch die restlichen Verschiebungen rückgängig machen könntest.

Es sind noch 20 Bilder, die fälschlicherweise umkategorisiert sind.

93.133.124.85 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.124.85 (talk)

19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

18:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [11]

  Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous



Hello, I've uploaded this article. But the article does not appear in Internet, that everybody can read it. When it will be possible? Thanks for answer OQay OQay (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Malplaced disambiguation pages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages hasn't been updated by your bot in nearly a month. Can you look into this? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

RussBot and Rcats

Hi, just flagging this up: it would be nice if the bot checks for {{Redirect category shell}} and adds the redirect category inside, rather than outside that template. – Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala, thanks for the suggestion. I think I can make that happen! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

  Miscellaneous



Eiji Takemoto

I saw that you added a {{dn}} tag to Eiji Takemoto. It would have been better to have reverted this diff; repairing by hand is fiddly. That edit was by an IP-hopping troll who has appeared twice at WP:ANI and had their active accounts blocked. The thing to look out for is bizarre links, even down to individual letters of words, in a section called "Tokusatsu". Narky Blert (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not always simple to tell if a dab link is the result of vandalism. It's certainly fine with me if you undo my edit in the process of rolling back a vandal --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't have hesitated (and I never mind when that happens to me) - but unfortunately there were a couple of good non-trivial edits after yours. Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

00:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

21:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry for accidentally sending you notifications of speedy delete nominations originally created by your bot. I try to remember to untick the notify creator box on Twinkle but occasionally I forget. Best wishes, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your evaluation of whether User:Getsnoopy's edits are in good faith

Unless the user is 10 years old and hasn't figured out how to use Google properly, it takes only two or three minutes on Google to figure out how to punctuate legal citations properly in American English. I respectfully disagree. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: As you state you are a lawyer, I am sure you are familiar with the concept that there are points on which people can assert differing views without doing so in bad faith. And perhaps you are even aware of the existence of the Maroonbook. Citation forms are not absolutes. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Your first point is true but of minimal relevance here because we are talking about an issue on which there has been a strong consensus among American lawyers and law professors for decades. The Maroonbook is an outlier that has found few converts outside of the University of Chicago. 47 states and virtually all federal courts use either the Bluebook or the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation (which is very similar). Only Michigan, New York, and Oregon state courts think it's a good idea to drop periods from abbreviations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: Ignoring your gross contempt and recalcitrance, it seems like you don't fundamentally understand how WP works, what the difference between a dialect and citation style is, nor what vandalism is. It doesn't matter whether an article is written in American English about an topic on US law, or whether lawyers have been doing something a certain way for x number of years. WP has its own style guide, namely WP:MOS. There are myriad ways MOS differs from "strong consensus" in the real world. E.g., everyone seems to be using "Mbps" as an abbreviation for "megabits per second", but WP chooses to use "Mbit/s" which is the official symbol for the unit; similarly, sentence case for titles and headlines while most sources would use title case. There are myriad other examples like this. Secondly, none of this has to do with whether an author is writing in American English, British English, Australian English, or any other dialect. One can (and many do) write following the style of MOS in any variety of English. Thirdly, vandalism is when someone deliberately and maliciously changes something to obviously cause damage, quite different from when an active editor is following the long-established style guide on a forum to correct errors. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been editing WP significantly longer and more extensively than you. Somehow you failed to develop any understanding of the longstanding consensus, going back to around 2006 or 2007, that geographically focused articles track the dialect in the geographic region on which they're focused, while it's anything goes for articles that lack geographic focus or are linked to regions where no one English dialect is dominant. For example, American lawyers consider it insane that English lawyers use square brackets rather than parentheses to mark years, because square brackets are normally used to mark deviations in quotations from the original text (either paraphrasing or changes of number or tense). We also think it was a bad idea for England to drop the period after the "v." in case names, because as anyone with introductory computer science training can tell you, that makes case names much more difficult to parse and read (especially when party names include many "v" letters). But in the spirit of civility and respect for the few English solicitors who bother to take the time to edit Wikipedia, I do not go around engaging in uncivil conduct and picking fights with them by doing crazy things like trying to revise "Hadley v Baxendale [1854]" in articles on English contract law to "Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)." That's essentially what you're doing here.
There are dozens of freely accessible Web pages from American law schools explaining how to cite the United States Code properly as U.S.C. The fact that you haven't taken the time to read one (it only takes ten minutes, go check them out) supports an obvious and reasonable inference --- or as we call that in my field, circumstantial evidence.
Also, don't make me laugh---you're not correcting errors, you're inserting them. The fact you can't see that speaks for itself. (And to be clear, I am saying you are in an unknown unknowns situation. Go learn how to use the Johari window.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: You, yet again, seem to miss the point of the discussion. It doesn't matter what American lawyers think or do; it matters what the style guide for WP is. This feature is not something that's peculiar to the American English dialect, but to a profession that happens to be carried out in the US (hence MOS:TIES is irrelevant). There are myriad examples of American English being used where there are no dots used to write initialisms/acronyms. And regardless of all of that, it's what the consensus says expressly regarding US-related initialisms/acronyms that are 3 letters or more. You seem to have a problem with the consensus, so you should take it up on that page.

Regardless of its irrelevance, the reason it would be incorrect to go around editing articles name "Hadley v Baxendale" is because it's the title of a case, which consensus says to preserve all its spelling and peculiarities. Your arrogant and dismissive tone is also something that's not welcome on WP, so the fact that you've supposedly been "editing WP significantly longer and more extensively" than me really makes me question whether that accolade is meaningful at all. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your dismissal of MOS:TIES as irrelevant is entirely unconvincing. An article entitled "United States Code" is about as strong as one can get in terms of a "tie" to a particular nation. The tie is right there in the title.
Go look up a film called Whiplash on YouTube. Specifically, the scene with the line, "Not, not quite my tempo." That's a film about jazz drumming at a music conservatory, but it resonates powerfully with all American intellectuals because it accurately depicts the level of perfectionism demanded by elite American universities. (Which is why J.K. Simmons won an Oscar for that performance.) One form of that perfectionism is being rigorously drilled in how to punctuate properly. Unfortunately, other English dialects lost sight of that because their educational systems aren't as brutal in terms of sending students home every single day with red marks all over their papers.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the relevant MoS guidelines. Start with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal, specifically the following: "Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions." That text has been there since this edit on 16 February 2011.
Another relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Citing sources, especially the section on Citation Style and ArbCom's position on the issue.
Finally, "arrogant and dismissive?" Really? It looks like you have some degree of self-awareness of your tone at a subliminal level. I'm sorry if my bluntly honest assessment hurt your feelings. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that that article has strong ties to the US. The point is that that strong tie establishes grounds for that article to be written in American English. This, however, doesn't have anything to do with formatting according to a specific professional style. Which brings me to my next point.

Ah, so bringing up MOS:LEGAL is relevant; I didn't know that we had a specific WP style guide for legal articles. However, if you look at my edits on that article, all edits (except one) change prose, not citation styles, which is what MOS:LEGAL seems to be specifically dealing with. That means MOS:US still applies. So I guess I can remove that one edit and redo all of the other ones.

I wasn't being arrogant nor dismissive at all. I was merely responding to your gratuitous comments about you being superior because you had a longer pedigree, that I am "10 years old", that I don't know how to "use Google properly", etc. I hope you didn't expect to be treated pleasantly after that demeanour. And no ha, you didn't hurt my feelings; we barely know each other; there's a difference between blunt honesty and gratuitous commentary. Seeing from your talk page, it seems like this isn't the only case where you seem to have had conduct issues; I wish you well on dealing with that. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I hereby award you the title of Hero of the Order of Disambiguation. BD2412 T 19:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope you're holding up well in these strange times! BD2412 T 19:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! 😃 We're managing. Hope you're doing well, too! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm happy as a clam to sit at home and edit for days at a stretch. BD2412 T 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)