User talk:DMacks/Archive 61

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 55 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Set index articles on molecular formulas/sandbox

Have you finished with the unparented test page Category:Set index articles on molecular formulas/sandbox, please? – Fayenatic London 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Nerfed (I think, might take a while to propagate). Someday I'll revisit what I was working on there. Some...day... DMacks (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Tech News: 2024-14

MediaWiki message delivery 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Culture vandal

Re [6], the user is a long-term troll, any effort put into edit summaries will be lost. Best, CMD (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the intel. Wasn't one I had encountered before when that edit popped up on my watchlist. DMacks (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Is 31 hours the right block-length (based on IP hop rate)? DMacks (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
31 would work fine, it's a proxy that will be dropped immediately. CMD (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, at least we'll get some proxy-blocks out of it. Is it open enough that we should block for longer term? I'll watchlist a few more pages in that area, but also feel free to ping me if you find a mole that needs whacking. DMacks (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is harm in blocking for a longer term, it has been done on previous occasions, but at the same time there is no point taking time out of your day to do it. Usually they make one or maybe two edits per IP of more subtle disruption, this one feels like its acting out to try and get a reaction. CMD (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Okidoke. Thanks again for the details. DMacks (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Page help link

Template:Page help link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-15

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please check your inbox

I just sent you an email. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Epoxy

Hi there!

Regarding the edit in Epoxy#Renewable, recycled, waterborne and biobased epoxy

I appreciate your point about biobased epoxies having been around for a while. However, the concept of 100% closed-loop recycling is quite novel, which is why it's highlighted in the recent publication in Science. Perhaps my explanation wasn't clear enough. I am just trying, to keep Wiki up-to-date.

Closed-loop recyclability of a biomass-derived epoxy-amine thermoset by methanolysis | Science RomanVilgut (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-16

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-17

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Editor at Signs of the coming of Judgement Day

Noticed you at that page and thought I'd bring up not the edit (although I don't understand the switch they are making there and elsewhere of a chart) but their contributions. Most seem bad. Lots of copyvio, clumsy English, failure to source. See [24] When they do source they clearly don't know what our criteria, eg using an open wiki as a source. Of their just over 500 edits, 62 have been reverted and I think that a lot more need removing. You may not have the time or stomach to bother with this, and that's ok. But I do think they are messing up a lot of articles but am not sure I can sanction yet. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

One other. Here's an edit chosen because the edit summary says "stop using cushion words" referring to the word "some" that he removed from "daf holds special importance because some Muslims believe that it is the only musical instrument which is permitted to be used".
The source contains a quote saying "Some Muslims hold all forms of music to be forbidden, others permit certain forms of unaccompanied singing, while others will permit the use of daff or drum like a tambourine (without the cymbals). In some Sufi circles the flute or lute are permitted"[25] Doug Weller talk 07:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you can sanction. A ton of small problems, and an occasional large problem, especially in this topic-area, needs to be stamped out. Copyvio and change of meaning (especially when it was previously per cited ref). DMacks (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. Short block or indef? I think the latter, but he hasn't been blocked before. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No objection to indef. I'm hard-pressed to AGF in cases of change-of-meaning in religious/sectarian contexts when edit-summary does not mention it. Either they don't know what they are doing (CIR for idiomatic English) or they do know what they are doing (NPOV or sealion). DMacks (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your advice. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

hi

hi 104.235.88.49 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This Month in Education: March 2024

Tech News: 2024-18

MediaWiki message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

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.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Complement on not being part of the precipitate

Every once in a while I notice the gears of the Wikipedia machine being turned around and I'm impressed by the social organization of it. Because it is not a mindless machine, but flawed, wonderful, thinking people doing their best. People paying attention, making notes, being part of the solution to problems (and not the precipitate as the Chemistry joke goes). Sure, people come in trying to turn over the tables, but just as quickly other people are cleaning it up and putting everything back where it was, or even maybe a bit cleaner than it was before the fracas. I checked back on a little vandalism thing and saw your notes on sock investigations. You and Classicwiki making sure the boxes get checked and it made me impressed with how well our little place works. Thanks for being part of it. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany: thanks for your kind words. Glad to help! The more socks dissolved and poured down the drain, the better. DMacks (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-19

MediaWiki message delivery 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WEZJ Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WEZJ Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-20

MediaWiki message delivery 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This Month in Education: April 2024

Tech News: 2024-21

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Question to your comment on my draft article Draft:RG Qluck Wise

Hi @DMacks,

Do you mean if an article has been deleted on Wikipedia without meeting the criteria: notable, does it mean one shouldn't have an article again.

Secondly, what if the subject have a reliable sources, Independent News|independent news sources or secondary sources to support the article?

Best regards, Abigailka (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

An article can sometimes be created even if it had previously been deleted. It depends on the reason it was deleted. But having been deleted once, it usually means many eyes have looked at the topic and available references and found that it was not viable at that time. The new attempt must not suffer from whatever problems identified in the previous attempt. Reliable sources are always important. Without them, no article can ever be written. A previous AFD might be useful to see what sources were available at that time and why they were not sufficient. So the new attempt needs sources that are newer and stronger than those. DMacks (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
So tell whether News Ghana, GhanaWeb, MENAFN, and Africa Publicity are not reliable sources or they are Abigailka (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not know about them in particular. The fact that two of them do not have Wikipedia articles is concerning. DMacks (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking more closely, MENAFN is not notable and therefore not likely to be a good source. AfricaPublicity is definitely not acceptable, as it identifies itself as a "public relations and media agency promoting businesses, organizations, entertainers, and individuals across Africa." DMacks (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Opinion accepted, can verify here MENAFN, same applies to Africa Publicity, but I can suggest that GhanaWeb and News Ghana are a good sources so check on this two. Abigailka (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-22

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

More block evasion

More obvious block evasion by User:Ma'at36 as 37.35.189.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Bishonen got it. DMacks (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-23

MediaWiki message delivery 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

drillmario aka balloonmario has another account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samusandhisfriends also consider protecting both stoning and legal system of the UAE pages. Thanks. Pieinthesky1 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. I forget, do they jump around a lot, or should we keep these honeypots? DMacks (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Another one was just blocked by me a bit ago: User:DeeEffay. Looks like all from the same IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued help, it seems he just won't learn. Maybe a long ip block is in order? Say 5 years since I guess you can't permaban ips. Just an idea. Pieinthesky1 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@RickinBaltimore: I'd support an IP block. DMacks (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
IP blocked for a year to start. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Your recent comment.

Hi DMacks.

Can you please provide proof (evidence) that my website is 'low-value' and my content is 'spam'?

I am an expert in my field with more than 600 published crochet patterns available. I've been publishing for more than 10 years.

If you do not want to include my site as a source (even though I have more experience than some of the other sources that have been allowed to contribute and be linked in Wikipedia for Crochet Topics) that is totally fine.

However, leaving slanderous comments on the internet about the quality and type of content I provide in unacceptable.

My website is registered as a Corporation in Canada and as such, defamation of my business is taken very seriously.

Please provide your proof (other than your personal opinion) that my content is spam and low-value.

This is your comment:

curprev 16:54, 7 June 2024‎ DMacks talk contribs‎ 51,742 bytes −287‎ spam for a low-value blog is as unacceptable today as it was 3 years ago. Undid revision 1227755106 by Rhonddamol (talk) undothank Tag: Undo

Sincerely, Rhondda Mol Rhonddamol (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources", blogs and other self-published material are by default considered non-reliable and therefore "low value" as a reference (I am one of now three different editors to note that using using your blog as a ref is a problem). Use of "reliable" sources is one of Wikipedia's gold standards as an encyclopedia. Personal reputation in a field is a reasonable basis for having one's publications be considered, but those sorts of claim are only relevant to the extent other independent sources verify them. Being a corporation does not add any extra weight or value here. DMacks (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
So you are saying that you are labelling my registered professional corporation as a unreliable source on crochet and that my business is providing spam and low-value content.
Please then explain why you have allowed the following (I've only included 5 examples from the Crochet topic - there are more) blogs to be linked as sources?
Sources you have allowed that are blogs:
https://www.knitterspride.com/blog/which-type-and-size-of-crochet-hook-do-i-choose/en
https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/winding-a-ball-from-hank-of-yarn-2116505
https://www.gathered.how/knitting-and-crochet/crochet/crochet-stitches
https://www.knitcrochetcreate.com/post/crochet-tension-explained
https://www.schoolofsweetgeorgia.com/spot-the-difference-us-vs-uk-crochet-terms/
The rules should be the same for all content creators.
If my website is not considered a reliable source because it is self-published then all five of the one's I've listed above should not have been allowed to be used as sources either. Based on Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources".
Please explain. Rhonddamol (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, combatting poor sources on Wikipedia's nearly 7 million articles is a never-ending task. There is no editorial board here that authorizes each piece of content, but instead thousands of editors who each can act on whatever they see. Do not make it worse. But as an easy first response for the one I've heard of, Spruce Crafts seems to have reasonable editorial oversight and identified some notable contributors, with Dotdash Meredith being a notable publisher of such sites. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
You may want to rethink your Spruce Crafts as a reliable source. They have transferred content that was user generated by bloggers to their site and repurposed links written by a blogger to things like this http://crochet. about.com/od/homedecorpatterns/p/variegated_earthtone_potholders.htm to become this https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/free-patterns-for-crochet-potholders-978957
Regardless I'd like you to remove your comment that my site is 'low-quality' and my source link is 'spam'.
I will refrain from submitting any further suggestions to Wikipedia. Rhonddamol (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Dotdash Meredith sites do seem to need case-by-case assessment. DMacks (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
While knitterspride does appear to be a blog and therefore default low-value source, the first link I saw to it was merely using a page of it that is merely an apparent restatement of a published medical research study. That's not bad. But we should find that study and use it directly instead. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Here are the other blogs you have used as approved sources for the Crochet page:
https://itsallinanutshell.com/2016/02/12/how-to-crochet-difference-between-us-and-uk-crochet-terms-abbreviations/
http://ayarnifiedlife.wordpress.com/slip-stitch-crochet/
https://web.archive.org/web/20120224074527/http://www.crochetliberationfront.com/clf-myth-busting-13-more-yarn/ (this site does not exist anymore you are using web archive to serve the link)
Good luck updating Wikipedia. Rhonddamol (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources need not be currently accessible electronically or at their original site. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
it was still a blog...which = By Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources", blogs and other self-published material are by default considered non-reliable and therefore "low value" as a reference...
I do have a question though...isn't all content available on the internet 'self-published' by definition? Rhonddamol (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a good question. Everyone publishes whatever they publish. One confusing distinction is between the "publisher" (who posts it or runs the site) vs the "author" (who writes the content). See WP:SELFPUBLISH for a guideline that builds on that idea. Regarding crochetliberationfront, I don't yet know anything about it, just noting that your parenthetical concern does not make the ref any worse. DMacks (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I resolved that knitterspride link (was redundant at best). Some others to that site were added by User:Themindfulcollection and seem solely to promote that site. Obviously that's not acceptable, so I removed the one that someone else had not already handled. Thanks for identiftying that set! Sometime I'll try to look back at the others and look in more detail at the status of Spruce. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-24

MediaWiki message delivery 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)