User talk:BethNaught/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Tim Peake

Vandalism still persists. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be a target as long as he's in space, so I put it to 6 months of pending changes. Also 1 week of semi-protection because there haven't been any constructive IP edits recently. BethNaught (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for the block ;) Krett12 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

File:EALT Conservation Lands.jpg

Dear BethNaught,

Could you please undelete this file? There has been a valid release as per ticket:2016012010020873. Natuur12 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Done. I don't have OTRS access so please put the templates and things on promptly. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I asked them a couple of follow up questions since they used a base map to create this file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion of Megastoreinc

Hello, i'm actually new to creating Wikipedia page and i do like to know the reasons why Megastoreinc page was deleted, so as to correct and avoid future errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netwrkx (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you had read the links provided in the deletion summary which you can see when you look where the page used to be, you would have seen that it was deleted for being promotional and not saying why the company was significant. BethNaught (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for dealing with a particularly persistent vandal this evening. Have a brownie! RandomAct(talk to me) 08:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

RevDel Request

Could you kindly have a look at the edit summary here: [1] and possibly RevDel the rather nasty personal attack? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty run-of-the-mill for personal attacks, but we can bring it under RD3, I think. Done. BethNaught (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight if charges dropped?

I noticed this revert, 14:29, 14 December 2014‎ BethNaught (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,463 bytes) (+237)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by 93.143.169.53 (talk): Undue prominence if he's not convicted, also you removed the reference. (TW)) (undo | thank)" 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=638051327&oldid=638051251

I notice that there are a substantial number of editors who have removed material from the article "Terry Bean", apparently in an effort to sanitize it and remove references to Terry Bean's child molestation accusations. You did not explain your reasoning for saying, "Undue prominence if he's not convicted, also you removed the reference." I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but Colonel Oliver North eventually got charges against him dropped (Iran Contra), but nevertheless after nearly 30 years references to that legal matter remain in the article Oliver North. Can you explain why the dropping of the charges justifies removing of references? Are there any other subjects that should be entitled to this treatment, or do you think Terry Bean is somehow special? Lurie2 (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

1) That edit was over a year ago 2) I did not remove the material, I just readded the citation that was removed and moved the content out of the lead. I encourage my talk page stalkers to examine the recent editing history at Terry Bean. BethNaught (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
WELL!!! I'm glad to see that you have begun to see some sense concerning the article, Terry Bean, and you displayed that by reverting some material. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=705304019&oldid=705241667 You realize, of course, that by doing so you are admitting that others went way too far at trying to conceal negative and embarrassing information about Bean. For example, the edit you undid removed the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=705304019&oldid=705241667 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.140.152.26, whose edits so far cover an article titled "Howard Bragman" and "Terry Bean". Bragman is identified as the vice-president of Reputation.com. Today, as I think you know, companies such as this work primarily by manipulating the Internet record to add positive material, and to remove negative material. Outside of WP, there might be nothing wrong with that, but I suggest that in WP, that constitutes fraud and manipulation of the record. And you helped, by blocking an editor trying to revert the deletions of Weekender311: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&type=revision&diff=703167561&oldid=697377265
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to suspect that editor 38.140.152.26 is Bragman himself, or at least someone editing on his behalf. Notice that the Bragman article clearly lists under the paragraph "Community Work", the text: "Bragman has been active in the AIDS/HIV community, on lesbian and gay civil rights, Jewish causes and First Amendment protections. He has received awards and honors from AIDS Project Los Angeles, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and Congregation Kol Ami.[5] Bragman has founded the Jewish Image Awards, honoring positive portrayals of Jews in television and film." In other words, Bragman clearly has a powerful displayed interest in "improving" reputations by devious means, and specifically he is interested in LGBT issues.
I suggest that his interests go so far as to manipulate the Terry Bean article to remove accurate and well-sourced information embarrassing and even incriminating to not merely Bean himself, but child molesters specifically, and gays in general. And you helped. Do you feel ashamed yet? By coming back and restoring some of this material, you have done a positive thing, but only partly positive, and you have left the article much-manipulated beyond where it properly was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Bean&oldid=697377265
And further, you didn't discuss the edits you made on the Talk page, because that would have been embarrassing to you and the others who have been trying to manipulate the Terry Bean article. What is a Talk Page for, but to discuss edits? You should have called out the other manipulators, far more seriously than you did with just a brief "Rv unexplained removal. Before anyone attacks me for removing some things and restoring others, these bits are SOURCED, FACTUAL, and NEUTRAL IN TONE. (TW)) (undo)" Yes, they were! But you didn't go nearly far enough. 174.25.44.237 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Donald Trump (disambiguation)

Nice protection conflict. I'd like to extend semi-protection until after the election. Any objections? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Was I too slow this time? :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm generally more conservative about protecting a page for a long time in the first instance. Not on principle, mind, but out of conflict between WP:5P3 and common sense. I'm happy to be led in the direction of common sense. Thank you.
As an aside, a few weeks ago I did put in a feature request for Twinkle to detect conflicts like this, but it's not necessarily the highest priority for the volunteer devs, which is understandable. BethNaught (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I take a wider view of the topic, considering the history (as you did) but also the sockpuppets and persistent disruption elsewhere in the Trump family, and the fact that it's not going to stop. These protection conflicts are almost impossible to avoid. Good luck to the developers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks / sorry

Oops. I'm sorry about this - that was not meant to happen. I was actually trying to thank you for blocking the problem editor: so, thank you! It's very odd - it's happened to me a couple of times recently. I would absolutely swear blind that I'd clicked the right place ... but maybe not. Anyway, thanks again and sorry for the apparently silly edit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - very odd. My logs show that I did successfully thank you, and one minute later (or, to be more accurate, in the next minute) I reverted you. And yet I don't think I did! I know they are adjacent, but I still don't think I did. Please bear with me in case it happens again, as I am now going to try to thank you again, and watch what happens. Well, that proved nothing. Ho hum. Thanks & sorry DBaK (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Give this script a try if you have recurring rollback problems... it stopped my cat from edit-warring ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I will go and have a look. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC) PS Naughty moggy!

Hello again!

Hope all's well. Last time, which also happened to be the first time, haha, we spoke was when that user made that threat against me, and they then were using multiple IPs to evade the block. :)

Anyway, just thought you should be aware that that range seems to be back again. See here. And that's not the only one. I saw another one a while ago. Amaury (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rangeblock advice requested. I think a rangeblock would significantly hinder them but it's more complicated than before. BethNaught (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thank you for the school block and subsequent hoppers. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Percheron

Can you reduce Percheron's protection? It has been vandalized because it is the TFA. Just a few hours until tomorrow's enters the scene. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The last time an IP made a useful edit was June 2014. I think the benefits of some vestigial protection against vandals who have become aware of the page outweighs the risk of disallowing a positive IP edit, particularly once it's off TFA. Feel free to go to RFPP if you disagree. BethNaught (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard

"Reverted 2 edits by Abulhassan12 (talk): Not the place to start an article. (TW)

Not to mention what seems to be an article about the poster's own self! --Thnidu (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Millennials

3 months is too long to restrict editing at Millennials. Could you just shorten the time frame? People have been arguing over the birth dates since the articles inception since 2002. 2606:6000:610A:9000:E58B:CAF9:483E:78E8 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It's on pending changes, so anybody can edit it. I am of the opinion that PC is important to help keep a lid on disruption. BethNaught (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Guide to community social expectations

I just saw your comment on this at Jimbo's talk page. I actually started writing something similar in the aftermath of James' dismissal - it was primarily about clear communication, and built off a few thoughts I had for an essay on communication between editors, but later I started adding a few broader points as well. Would you be interested in discussing/working together on this? Cheers, Sunrise (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sunrise: As far as my own ideas go, it's pretty much what I wrote on Jimbo's page. Feel free to use those in your document. I would be very happy to provide you with feedback on your writings and discuss the issue with you. I don't anticipate having much opportunity to do some serious writing in the near future though. BethNaught (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. I can't commit to a major project either right now, but I'll go through my notes and try to post a draft sometime in the next few days. Sunrise (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, please see User:Sunrise/Guide to community social expectations - I guess I've committed to a major project after all. :-) Also pinging Alsee and Risker as editors who I think would be interested. Responses on my part may be slow for the next week or two, but please edit mercilessly (e.g. some of my personal wikiphilosophy has probably made its way in), and everyone should feel free to invite others as well. Sunrise (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You pretty much nailed it! I added a few comments myself, although I fear they're really disguised gripes about the Gather debacle - feel free to remove them if they're out of scope. Thank you for writing such a clear and comprehensive page. BethNaught (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Sunrise, I was going to propose something related. The comment has been sitting in an unsaved edit window for 2 days, heh. Most of the staff have zero familiarity with us beyond the public facing article pages, and maybe making a handful of article edits. We would never expect that sort of newbie editor to have the faintest clue about central community management - but "they're the WMF" so everyone assumes they know everything we consider obvious. My concept was a "basic info" guide, and the assumed reader would be a new WMF hire knows zip beyond article reading. It could give a basic overview of how we operate, our concept of consensus, RFCs, Admins, links to Village Pump and Admin Noticeboard, a micro-summary of major policies, anything that we'd assume the WMF should either know or be able to easily look up. Very wide ranging - but I wanted to avoid the wall-of-text effect. That means the main guide would be absurdly superficial. There could be subpages with more detail. Risker's_checklist_for_content-creation_extensions could be a subpage. User:Sunrise/Guide to community social expectations could be a subpage.
I skimmed User:Sunrise/Guide. There's a lot of good stuff there, but also a lot I'd like to work on. In particular there are parts where I'd like to ease up on the WMF. I have been seeing some incredibly positive changes lately. It's hard to tell whether it's because the long-promised efforts to improve relations are finally coming together, or if it's because good-will staff are finally being let off of the leash. One staff member made a comment to me about serious internal divisions at the WMF - it was vague but strikingly candid. I'm writing a review of Media Viewer events at that staff member's request. I just helped the Reading team draft an RFC asking for our feedback on the Related Pages feature, about to be posted. They want to build a full process for consulting the community on new projects. I'm installing a new page at Village pump dedicated to Community-WMF engagement. I've got a pile of other thing I'm tracking. I've got so many balls in the air that I'm having trouble making progress on anything. I'd love to work on User:Sunrise/Guide and/or a general guide, but I need to clear away some of my other stuff first. No rush on it I hope? Alsee (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
No rush! I like the idea of making a general "basic information" guide - please let me know if I can help. For User:Sunrise/Guide, all edits are appreciated. In particular, I think it might help to add more about what sorts of behaviors or actions are viewed positively. Sunrise (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Chnprice.com

Hi, could you tell me the reason why did deleted my page Chnprice.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishazhangzsg (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Like I wrote in my deletion summary that you could have read instead of asking me. BethNaught (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Varmus's photo

Hi

This is proust1129. I am lab manager in Dr. Varmus lab in Weill Cornell Medicine. Dr. Varmus authorized me to edit his wiki page. The photo you tagged for speedy deletion was taken by Matthew Septimus in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. I did not have the information until this morning. I will upload it again and add necessary information.

Thank you, Proust1129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proust1129 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

in re harpalgeo.tv

Dear BethNaught,

We had created the following pages however they were deleted on account of unambiguous copyright infringement of http://harpalgeo.tv/all-programs/babul-ka-angna/). I may bring forth the fact that IMMDigital actually owns these properties which are programs aired by Har Pal Geo (TV Channel). IMM Corporate is a company owned by Jang and Geo Group that owns all the channels and their programming.

Previously, some of the channels had been created by external sources however, we have now decided to create and launch all of our properties on Wikipedia. I would request you to kindly either restore these pages or let me know a legal procedure through which we can restore/re-create these pages.

Thanking you.

The following are the pages that have been deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Ki_Ammi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babul_Ka_Angna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heer_(Drama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_Jahan_(Drama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangdil_(Drama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila_Aur_Jannat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tera_Mera_Rishta_(Drama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teri_Meri_Jodi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Janoon_Mera_Khuda_Janay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai_meri_behan_ka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immdigital (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion declined. Please see what JohnCD wrote on your talk page. BethNaught (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Defender of the WP:sandbox

Thanks for protecting us all.
You have been waging an unceasing war on the Richards among us. A valiant effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
ROFL. Literally... Also, thanks for the condoms, we desperately need some protection... BethNaught (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hope that brightened up your day. I added it to my watchlist — based on the request at WP:ANI for some kind of protectoin! I never gave this stuff a second thought. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox Filter

Hi BethNaught:

Is there a way we can protect the sandbox without it being an issue to other IP's?

Any help would be appreciated...

--TJH2018 talk 20:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Using the Abuse Filter to prevent sandbox vandalism is an idea. Trying running it past AN while I man the Sandbox? I'm determined not to give them the satisfaction of forcing it to be protected. BethNaught (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be back. --TJH2018 talk 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. There's such a thing as going over the top though... BethNaught (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm sick and tired of socks and vandals. I've already been involved in a similar case, and all my userpages are now semi-protected because of it. I will refrain next time though. Gotta think it through. --TJH2018 talk 20:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice work. If it gets boring I'd suggest simply article_text irlike "sandbox" & ip_in_range(user_name, "70.192.0.0/16") -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Done and it's working. Why didn't I think of that? BethNaught (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Works like a charm! --TJH2018 talk 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
They're still trying. But since zzuzz identified the range, and there's a range contribs tool, [2], it should be under control. BethNaught (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Can't thank you enough. Since I'm still pretty new to this, I wouldn't have been able to do this without you (it's cheesy, I know)! Anyways, I'll still be watching WP:Sandbox, and if anything pops up, I'll let you know. Again, big thanks! TJH2018 talk 21:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiccup

There have been reverts. Extend PC or upgrade to semi? --George Ho (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadae

Thanks for deleting that page. It might also be a good idea to protect it from being recreated, since that troll most likely will recreate it at some point otherwise. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's part of the usual MO. I was going to leave it as a honeypot this time but why not just salt it. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I owe you one.

I did my best to prevent the vandalism of Henry_Wadsworth_Longfellow as well as preventing him from getting into my Talk page.

I owe you one.

I don't know why I need a signature ~Malachq (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DJ Kamal Mustafa

DJ Kamal Mustafa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Dj kamal mustafa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Kamal Mustafa (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why my page dj kamal mustafa got deleted ? it has good notability interviews , imdb , top40charts and etc then why ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.250.119 (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello. The subject of the article does not meet our notability requirements. See WP:Articles for deletion/DJ Kamal Mustafa, WP:GNG, and WP:MUSICBIO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My TP

Thanks very much for that BethNaught. I seem to have attracted a more energetic form of opponent at least cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's part of a continual harassment campaign against Bonadea by Nsmutte. Please report any suspicious edits to me or at SPI. You're welcome :) BethNaught (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Just removed speedy deletion templates from your talk page, BethNaught. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This has happened to User:Favonian's talk page also. Looks like an IP hopper. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Filter change

I just thought I'd point you to a recent filter change I've made, in case you thought otherwise. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Spooky. I'll leave it longer next time. Thank you for doing that. BethNaught (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

blocking of user: 198.232.211.130

Dear BethNaught,

Recently you "blocked" me. I tried to make a response with the automated system but was unable to so I am providing my "appeal" to you directly. I would greatly appreciate a response since I feel a blocking was not only unwarranted but that disciple should have been meted out to others. I give you the following:

I believe the "blocking" was clearly against Wikipedia policy.

I made edits per Wikipedia policy, my edits I don't think would even be considered "bold" edits. That is to say, there was nothing extreme or to my knowledge controversial and certainly I don't believe made to vandalize or otherwise diminish the quality of the Wikipedia entry.

Nevertheless an editor violated Wikipedia by "reverting" my edits and contrary to policy did not state a basis for the reverts nor did he/she make any effort to retain any portion of my edits or ever enter into any dialogue or seek to enter into any dialogue regarding the subject matter of my edits, even after my repeated invites to enter into dialogue.

Edit warring by definition requires "An edit war occurs when editors who DISAGREE about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's CONTRIBUTIONS." This never occurred in my case. FAMSPEAR even states he AGREES with my edits. Further none of them ever made any contributions to the article which is a required condition for edit warring to occur.

Of the four or five editors who then ganged up on me (in an apparent effort to "game" the system and avoid the "three revert rule") none of them ever made any edits themselves nor were they the original author of any of the subject matter that I edited. In short edit warring requires editors warring over each others edits, which never occurred in this case. Further I never reverted anyone's edits because none of them made any edits. Technically all I did was "undo" the reverts, which is not "reverting" as that is defined by Wikipedia policy.

My case is more accurately characterized as a violation by these other editors gaming the system and making multiple violations of the three revert rule and worse failing at anytime to enter into a dialogue as to why my edits are defective in any way.

The most egregious case is that of editor FAMSPEAR who made this statement to me:

"Your statement about the state of the law on the Tenth Amendment is actually more or less correct. However, being right about that is not enough"

So I he/she agrees with my edit but then reverts me anyway, which of course violates Wikipedia policy in multiple ways. He/she goes on to state the exact opposite of Wikipedia policy that I am required to develop a consensus for an edit BEFORE making the edit. This of course is not Wikipedia policy on making edits see "editing".

Regardless, policy is such that they should have retained what they found "good" and in this case FAMSPEAR appears to admit it is all "correct". He/she was required by the policy to leave the article alone, nevertheless he/she violated policy in several ways by reverting. Notice he/she makes no effort to discuss what if anything he/she finds inadequate regarding the edit.

I was then "blocked" for "editing warring" when by definition this never occurred. None of the other editors made any edits or even attempted to make any edits, nor did they accept my multiple invitations to enter into dialogue in the Talk page regarding my edits. Nor did they make any efforts whatsoever to retain what they could of mine and make it better.

I would also point out the other editors (who appear to be acting as a group ganging up on me) engaged in what I consider disrespectful ad hominem attacks against me rather than engaging in any constructive critique of my actual edit. I believe I remained respectful and constructive even in the face of their bad behavior.

I would also point out this "gang" is very apparent when the later editors who ganged up on me are shown to have never edited these two pages before. For example notice FAMSPEAR who has never shown any interest or any edits on these pages historically. So their behavior and attempt to block me is very disingenuous. They attacked me based on their gang association on not out of any real connection to or interest in the article.

So I must protest the block and ask the question of why these individuals are not blocked for their obvious incorrect actions per Wikipedia policy? Especially given that they appear to have done it purposefully, maliciously (the ad hominem attacks) and knowingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You made edits at United States dollar and Supremacy Clause not only on the 24th but also from 21st-23rd March. If you did not realise they were in some way controversial, you should have done after several editors, not just Famspear, reverted you. Then you should have followed WP:BRD and discussed it. You edit warred on multiple days. Regardless of the niceties of the case, you also violated the 3 revert rule: once at United States dollar on the 24th, and twice on Supremacy Clause, on 21st and 24th March. No other editor did (IIRC) and multiple editors were reverting you, which led me to block you.
If you wish to discuss content changes, please go to the article talk pages like you should have earlier. If you want to complain about the behaviour of other editors, go to WP:ANI. There is no redress I could give you except for saying my block was unjustified. However, I do not believe it was unjustified. If you wish to complain about me, read WP:GBU. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)]
Thank you for the response. Unfortunately for me you addressed little of what I presented to you. For example you instruct me to have gone to the TALK page to discuss, you state my edit is controversial. I am not aware of this, no one has indicated this. I also do not understand why you would instruct me to go to the TALK page when the original editor that reverted (and the subsequent editors) failed to state a basis for the reverts, I understand the following has effect in Wikipedia and I can expect the instrcutions to have validity and applicability:
“When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons” and “An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's CONTRIBUTIONS.” (see "Edit warring")
These other editors never indicated a "reason" and further they never contributed anything. So I would ask you, what specifically was I to address in the TALK page with these people when they do not indicate why they are reverting? You assume there is a controversy but I have no indication if there is or what it is. It would seem to me to repeatedly revert and never state why is more of vandalism than editing. It is clear these editors (if indeed they are separate people) worked in collusion to "game the system" and try to technically avoid the 3RR.
And why would you not make them state a reason or reprimand them for not stating a reason? Again FAMSPEAR indicated he agreed with me, was I supposed to go to the TALK page and argue against my own position? I can only follow the rules as I read them and hope that they have effect and apply to all.

My talk page

Thanks for reverting that. You beat me to it by a second. :-) Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Emmeline Pankhurst

Editing is infrequent, but most of IP edits have not been accepted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would have declined this. As you say, it is vandalised infrequently. Also the IP accept rate is closer to 50% ish. Still, since it's an FA, I have given it three more months of PC1. BethNaught (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

IP you just blocked

Thanks for revdelling their edits on August 5 and Florence Wench, was just about to ask you. (Also thanks for revdelling those on my userpage, though I wouldn't have bothered myself, I suppose. Just can't be bothered to care what the umpteenth vandal has to say about me. )

A vandal that's now evading on Pkoslon, by the way.

Also, any chance you could semi-protect Ellen Pompeo and Patrick Dempsey? Someone (or several someones, maybe?) keeps changing it so those two are supposedly married in spite of all sources disagreeing with that. (They were "married" in their roles in Grey's Anatomy, but that's it) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • User already blocked, pages protected for 3 days. BethNaught (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic IP-hopper at it again

Hi "Beth", could you please block this IP as it appears to be the same user who is tagging user talk pages for speedy deletion: Link here. Thanks, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • "Done" though it won't be the last today. BethNaught (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It won't be. Would a range block work in this instance? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The user's main range is a /10, so no way. I'm trying to keep it under control via edit filters. BethNaught (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the best way forward to me. Thanks for your help! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you both :-) --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem Bonadea. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bonadea: Now they've vandalised your subpage, would you like me to batch-semi-protect your user space? Twinkle would make it easy to do. BethNaught (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - yes, I'd appreciate that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. Talk page archives thrown in for good measure. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Ta muchly! --bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There's been another couple of block-evading IPs, one of which messed up the CSD template. Links to IP's contribs are in your talk page history. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Although I already know since that pings me and I've spent the last 45 minutes blocking this troll. BethNaught (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I momentarily forgot that other people get pinged too when their talk pages are edited. trout Self-trout --Ches (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

See this. Cheers! -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was dealt with [3]. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nsmutte IPs

Hello B. After your work on the IP rangeblocks for this person they started creating accounts using gobbledygook letters for a day or so. The last few socks are using a new IP range starting with 106.220. I suspect you have already seen this but I though I'd let you know on the off chance that you have been busy with other things. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with this. MarnetteD|Talk 10:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've put it on my list. Unfortunately, Nsmutte appears to have access to at least half-a-dozen ISPs, so effective rangeblocks will be impossible. Filtering may be possible but they're currently not working properly. Fixing them is therefore my current priority. BethNaught (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info B. The latest sock is Dftvghjnk (talk · contribs). I'm headed to SPI to add this version. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Annoying IPs

Hello. 117.235.161.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps placing {{db-person}} on the user page of User:BethOne, your alternative account. I keep removing it because criteria A# don't apply to user pages and this IP keeping putting it back on. Thank you. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And 117.246.169.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
They have been blocked for block evasion by Zzuuzz. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 17:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Question about Nesmutte SPI

I was wondering why is this one person from India is harrassing the user. I saw the SPI page and that person is extremely persistent and obsessed. 2601:84:4601:D750:D043:CB32:2469:3670 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Sandbox got some help

Protector of the Wiki
Keeping the Richards at bay. Good job 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Another sock

...of one you just blocked: [4]. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:60FC:44F0:F227:C4AF (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Nipponese Dog Calvero

His sock is back again at Peter Nguyen Van Hung- JackLee0612 with his "Fully into the right content" business. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. BethNaught (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

New User:JoshuaSanada0523 same edit, same page (just lacking the manic frequency and bizarre edit summary this time). Thanks for sorting my TP this AM, btw- couldn't believe the message as first glance! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Already blocked by zzuzz. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

For you

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for removing that vandalism to my talk page and protecting the page. ♥ ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ Give to me your leather, take from me my lace. ♥ 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What was posted anyway? More inappropriate images? More belittling comments? ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ Give to me your leather, take from me my lace. ♥ 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, that kind of thing, sadly. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • What's sad is that whoever is behind this vandalism has probably had a bad experience with cheerleaders, and because of that, (s)he's taking pleasure in viciously attacking someone (s)he has never even met just because of an sport I participate in. (S)he's not even attacking his/her original targets anymore, so it has to be that. ♥ Kailey 2001 ♥ Give to me your leather, take from me my lace. ♥ 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re Mansaf being Jordanian or Jordanian and Palestinian

Hello, BethNaught. You have new messages at Talk:Mansaf#Jordanian_or_Jordanian_and_Palestinian.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I accidentally warned you instead of the IP. My apologies. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


User you blocked now socking to reinsert unfree images

User:Nouman khan sherani who you Blocked here for repeated uploading on copyvio images etc (you might remember this AN/I here) is back, now rejoicing in the title User:Nk Khan Sherani. A glance at his talk page clearly shows exactly the same behaviour. This behaviour hasn't gone unnoticed, btw- there's been an SPI opened on him here (although for yet another name). Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked the accounts and left a note at the SPI. BethNaught (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
BethNaught he's back here, exactly the same editing behaviour (creation unsourced Pasto films, removal of AfD templates etc): User:Dilber Munir. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why has my page been deleted!?

I am absolutely furious that my recent page 'oasis day' has been deleted! I demand to know why!? This is not a made up day, we celebrate this day annually and are trying to get the day more recognised by the use of this site it is already celebrated globally across America, Australia and the U.K. ! I cannot believe someone would be so obnoxious as to just delete this page! Lewisharman (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Like I said in the deletion reason, it was an "article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". It was invented by a Mr Harman, who by your name you presumably know. You give no sources to show it is a significant event, nor did you make any claim of significance in the article: "more popular" could just have meant that a couple more people turn up to your bar. Also, you have admitted that you are trying to promote your event. Using Wikipedia for promotion is not allowed. BethNaught (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"On Tyres" Vandal

Dear BethNaught,

On the 11th of April, I found a group of accounts that were impersonating other users with accounts such as Passengerpigeon on tyres (talk · contribs) and creating attack pages. According to a talk page watcher on User talk:Materialscientist, they were sockpuppets of User:Vote (X) for Change, so I reported them to his sockpuppet investigation page. However, Favonian said that they were puppets of Willy on Wheels, not Vote (X). This perplexed me, because I thought the original Willy on Wheels vanished in 2005 or so. However, I have since run across another sockpuppeteer, NSMutte, who seems to display a similar pattern of abuse. Since you have experience dealing with NSMutte, could you please tell me whether you think the socks I reported are actually NSMutte's?

That waz me on MS's page: sorry bout that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Vote (X) or Willy. However, the accounts that you reported behaved inconsistently with other Nsmutte socks. I would say that the probability of them being Nsmutte is low. BethNaught (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Diff/715670028. This user creator vandal has been going at this for the past 2-3 days. Not locking the talk page will likely be a problem. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 07:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, it's done :) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 07:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I'll try to remember. BethNaught (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nsmutte FYI

A couple of accounts that I would've guessed to be clear Nsmutte ducks (Banadea, Bomadea, BenNaught) have instead been blocked after CU checks as the "European Union referendum" sockmaster (shortened their name for brevity, SPI here), which is the same sockmaster as most of those other impersonation attempts recently.

Dunno whether this means that Nsmutte actually is aforementioned troll (though I doubt it somewhat, as I suspect such a thing would have been noticed with the multiple CUs) or, more likely, that the Referendum-troll is occasionally copying Nsmutte's MO. However, since you're the admin dealing by far most with Nsmutte, I figured it'd be something that might be useful for you to know. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Pinging @Favonian: and @Widr: who also do a lot to deal with Nsmutte, for their information. BethNaught (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll go with the mutating Referendum-troll hypothesis. It's fairly well established that Nsmutte can't string an English sentence together. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, looks the more likely of two options to me as well—in which case we'll probably need to keep an eye out for more such "miraculous" mutations by Referendum-troll. (Though, regarding stringing English sentences together,, has it been established anywhere that the Referendum-troll can? Most of what I see, both in names and in account's behaviour, is the ceaseless copy-pasting of nonsense, names, sentence fragments, templates, google translations and similar such content. Even their impersonation-attempt are done through abuse of ctrl-v. If only one could disable those keys from a distance...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

The last revert was four days ago. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think longer PC is warranted in this case. However, I must remonstrate with you. "The last revert was four days ago" is not a sufficient rationale to extend PC - it might have been the only revert (in an extreme case). You were previously warned by KrakatoaKatie to chill out about expiring protections, particularly on well-watched pages such as this one. In these requests, just as at RFPP, you need to demonstrate a full reason why more protection is needed. I find this quite irritating and the next time you make a request here with an insufficient rationale I will point you to RFPP and stop handling your requests. BethNaught (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Arb

Hi BethNaught, I have too much evidence for my filing. You might be interested in this for yours (especially since as a non-admin I can't see the dates or nature of all the deleted files, nor am I discussing files in my filing). As early as 7 August 2014 he was apprised of image copyright policy and stated "Will take enough time to read Wp:copyright policy so as not to commit the same blunder next time": [5]. Likewise: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for digging those out. I have added a section to my evidence with those diffs. Also, with my "admin glasses" I can confirm the deleted contents were blatant copyvios - and as for the image, he just grabbed it and slapped a CC tag on it with no truth whatsoever. BethNaught (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if this interests you but just ran across these files with no author, source, or description specifically listed as such: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. May be no problem but thought I'd pass them on. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did have a look at them, but they are more plausible as they have consistent EXIF data. Also, FWIW, Wikicology recently stated he did actually take them... I notice that another user has nominated File:Abaja.jpg for deletion; if that is deleted I may persue the others. BethNaught (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblocking

Beth, I am not User:Favonian (see [14]). Please unblock me. What the heck is going on?? Quis separabit? 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind -- just vandalism -- someone used your signature (see [15], [16]). Quis separabit? 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Galileo affair

You beat me to it. I already had reported the IP, and was about to request page protection. Next stop is Galileo Galilei, or one of the talk pages. I already removed a comment by 4tky43411, likely Azul411 sock: [17] Cheers & thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Galileo Galilei is already under semi-protection and move protection. However it is on my watchlist so I will esclate if I spot anything - I am aware of the use of autoconfirmed socks. BethNaught (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

openQA May 3

openQA was written by me in my own words. I'm not sure why this is being deleted. The first draft, May 2, was written together with a group of people from our project. The second post, May 3, was written in my own words. Please undelete. Dema9049 (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Dema9049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dema9049 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I will take the issues in turn.
  1. The first draft of OpenQA: the text was taken more or less verbatim from [18] and [19] which are marked "© SUSE Linux GmbH 2014". All Wikipedia content must be available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License. There is no evidence of those pages being under that license. Going by this notice, it seems you and your team transfer your copyrights to SUSE Linux GmbH. Do you have the authority to license their copyrighted material under the CC BY-SA? Even if you did, because the material has previously been published, you would have to follow the instructions at WP:DCM - you can't just paste it into Wikipedia without proof.
  2. The second version: this was mostly copied from [20]. You say you wrote it yourself - again, we need proof of that, and it's not even clear from that page who owns the copyright. The Git project seems to be GPL licensed. If that applies to the text, that's a problem because AFAICT you can't take GPL content and put it under CC BY-SA. Again, because it has previously been published, we need more formal evidence.
The other issue in the matter is the fact that you are writing with a conflict of interest. This is discouraged and you should read the linked page thoroughly. If you are receiving any money for editing Wikipedia, by the Terms of Use, you must also declare it in a manner prescribed by said Terms. I would suggest staying away from topics you work on in your job. BethNaught (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A question

Although I have been here since the world was young, there is something which as an admin you can do which I cannot. A short time ago you speedy-deleted a whole string of IP talk pages (correctly) in virtually zero time. It takes me a lot longer. How did you do that? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have Twinkle enabled, you should have a menu item labelled "D-batch" i.e. a batch delete feature. This brings up a list of all the pages linked to by the current page, or in the case or a category, the pages in the category, and you can batch delete your selection of these pages. BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I do not have twinkle. I should probably get it. Thank you for the advice. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your recent help in dealing with vandalism of my talk page and user page! LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Revdel Request

Probably a good idea to get rid of this old link to social media on my first account. I'm sure someone could find me irl if they put all of 15 minutes into it, but the link is a little much.

I would request that the account be deleted outright, but it's useful in the occasional case someone mistakes me for newish. TimothyJosephWood 14:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Done, although next time you want personally identifying information removed you ought to contact the oversight team. Now every admin who watches my talk page knows what's going on. You may even wish to do so now. I would have emailed you this advice but you don't have it enabled. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Probably right. Just popped over to the list of revdel admins and you were the first name I recognized. I'm not terribly concerned that admins are going to nefariously use an eight year old myspace account. Sorry for the bother. TimothyJosephWood 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: If you have access to the old account, you should probably redirect it to your new account - it is better to affirmatively link alternate accounts than to just claim that another account is also yours. I think I might be a talk page stalker here, but actually ran in to this while reviewing deletion logs. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:, I don't have access; that was the problem. I created it (I believe) using my old undergrad email, which I no longer have access to. No idea what that password is. Went for years doing IP edits between accounts. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you are awake

Could you take a look at Jimbo's talkpage - an IP is editwarring in mentions of Jimbo's children. Without speaking to him directly I am going on a presumptive he probably does not want their names broadcast to the wiki-world. Protection would be appreciated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected, IP blocked. BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No comment on socking - my concern was strictly BLP/Childprotection issues. I'm going to refactor out the remaining name from others comments (and replace with 'your daughter') as they are a non-notable person. If Jimbo wants to make a comment and revert it later he is welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was socking, and that's an easier reason to use for protection here, but I do see the safety issue, and thank you for looking at it. BethNaught (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, but absent an SPI I do not have the authority as a standard user to break 3rr based on the duck test. BLP removals are exempt however ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
My thinking exactly  :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: All India Pre Medical Test

Re your message: Thanks for pointing that out. That was a selection error on my part, not an intentional selection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Brave person

The Barnstar of Integrity
Guy and bikes. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, although I confess I have no idea what you're talking about... BethNaught (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I get it now... BethNaught (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hadn't read your user page though Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of Wayra

Hello, it looks like back on January 6, you restored] the article Wayra which had been deleted the day before. Could you restore the talk page as well? The current version talk page contains no discussions and it looks like editors have had a hard time recreating the prior WikiProject assessments. Thank you. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I undeleted the old versions so they're now in the page history. You can revert back to them as you think appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Alfa Romeo logo.png

Hi BethNaught. I think you may have added a redundant {{ffd}} tag to this file here because there are now two notifications: one by you and one by Stefan2. I left it as is because I wasn't sure if there is some reason that two notifications are needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again BethNaught. I see that the tag wasn't redundant, but that you had started a separate discussion about the file's use. FWIW, I think Stefan2 was basically arguing the same thing: remove from "Alfa Romeo Avio" but keep in the other article. Anyway, I think it would be better (as I posted at FFD) to combine the FFD you started into the one started by Stefan2, then trying to have two ongoing FFD discussions about the same file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Marchjuly. I don't know how I did that... BethNaught (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries. BTW, the thread you opened was closed, so you might want to re-post your concerns in the one that Stefan2 started. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist

Hello BethNaught, regarding Special:Diff/724666071 - this seems like an excessive use of the title blacklist, and page protections appears to already in place - what am I missing here? — xaosflux Talk 20:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: (Redacted)(WP:BEANS) BethNaught (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation, I'm going to RevDel that and link it to the blacklist for any other admins checking - looks like it has unfortunate come to that - perhaps revisit in a few months to see if it can be pruned? Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That is a very sensible suggestion. BethNaught (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale missing

Hi again BethNaught. You're an admin and you also do some work with non-free content at FFD, so perhaps you can advise me on how to best proceed with an NFCCP issue I am having. I removed a file from Italy women's national football team per WP:NFCC#10c, but it it was re-added by another editor who did not provide a rationale for the particular use. So, I removed the file once again, but the same editor re-added it again. I explained in my edit sums why the file was removed and even further clarified things in a post on their user talk page, but no rationale has been provided and no response has been received. I know some feel that the "proper" thing to do in such situations is to simply add a rationale as if that makes non-free use automatically OK, but I don't believe a valid rationale can be written for this particular use. Normally, I remove files where I feel a rationale cannot be written; on ther other hand, I have added or fixed rationales where non-free use seems justified. Even though I think removing the file a third time might be allowed per WP:NOT3RR, the other editor has been blocked for edit warring a couple of times before so I would like to avoid that kind of think if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say that it is not a good idea trying to edit war it out. If as you say on their talk page, there are precedents against the use of association logos on team articles, I would suggest filing an FFD to invalidate the fair use rationales provided for that file for the men's team: then using it on the women's team article would not make any sense either.
In my experience, trying to get those who would rather we were looser about non-free content to follow the formalities and proper rules is a hopeless and/or dramatic task (cf JzG's recent talk page non-free image blow-up). BethNaught (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Allow users to restrict who can send them email

Hi,

what are you intending to do? Your proposal is on a page, where you can ask for grants. This seems to me, that if you ask for such a grant, it would be your task to actually do the programming? This proposal would require changes to the database and very old parts of the mediawiki software. I think, that your proposal like mine is unlikely to be accepted. OTOH my idea has in the meantime (well only inside my head) evolved into a system, where experienced users could use regular expressions to do complex mail routing. This would include restricting the possibilty to send wikimail. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • No, I do not intend to do the programming because I cannot program, and certainly not in PHP. The Inspire campaign appears to me to be more of a brainstorming exercise; certainly others have used it like that. I am hoping that if it gets enough support a developer (staff or volunteer) will take it up. Obviously you could still do your idea, but it would be nice if people could make their email safer without having to learn regex. BethNaught (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    • People who can handle regex will not need harrassment protection, they know how to configure an email program to avoid it. But if the ideas get combined, it might elevate the chances for both. Regex is only an idea, it might be xml or something different and it would absolutly need a GUI frontend (possibly client-side javascript). --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 07:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Counterexample: I understand regex, yet I am at a loss as to how I might configure my email system to filter out harassment. At any rate, it would have to go to junk to catch false positives, but then I would still have to review it. Your idea is asking for some level of programming skill from the user, I am asking for a simple switch to require user rights to send me email. As far as my idea is concerned, you're overcomplicating it. BethNaught (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
        • This is all only ideas, but it might look like this: open the preferences, click email-prefs with the mouse, enter a user name in to an input field, delect a radio button "block email", click save-prefs button. Your idea, as I understand it, looks like adding a new user right "email sending allowed", that would be given to... hmm only auto-confirmed users? sichters in de.wp?, all new users unless revoked by an admin? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
          • No no no. We already have user levels: non-confirmed, autoconfirmed, admins. Each user would be able to choose which of those groups could send them email. For example, I could choose to let non-confirmed users send me email, but Jane Doe might choose to allow autoconfirmed only. Is this really not clear in my proposal?
          • FYI, there already is an "email sending allowed" right. It is currently assigned to all logged-in users, and that's not going to change because new users need email access for eg block appeals.BethNaught (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Ok, that should actually be easy to implement and I think you will find a developer to implement it. It might be a good thing for an average writing user. But it would not work for people who publish pictures to commons. If they upload pictures of quality, they will sooner or later get requests for a different licence by someone who has just registered to make the request. So if you need to set this right on commons to everyone allowed, everyone can just go to commons and use special/sendmail there. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 10:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nneamaka Isolokwu.jpg

I read the msg you left on my talkpage on File:Nneamaka Isolokwu.jpg which I uploaded. What I wanna ask is how do I state the permission of the owner of the photo gave me permission to use the photo directly while we were chatting? The owner of the photo gave me the permission to use it. How can I show proof of this? Willybeez (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you sir for protecting my page from vandals. Prof TPMS (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Revdel needed of random personal information

At, of all places, Polar stratospheric cloud, an IP (107... 94) inserted a random telephone number of a "friend" in the revisions at 11:26 and 11:28 Pacific time today. I see you're at your keyboard; thanks for looking at this... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. BethNaught (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:BethNaught/Archive_4"