File:Speedometer.jpg: Difference between revisions

{{Information}}

Wikipedia

Search

Jayjg

Joined 22 years ago

User page Talk

Watch

View history

Contributions

Edit

More

← Previous edit

Latest revision as of 19:02, 16 October 2024

Lowercase sigmabot III

Bots, Template editors

2,247,643

edits

m

Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43) (bot

(48 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)

{{clear}}

==Disambiguation link notification for April 28 ==

== Merchandise giveaway nomination ==

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Iddo Goldberg]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[British]].

{| class="barnstar" style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory;"

| [[File:3WMFShopTees.png|100px|alt=A t-shirt!]]

| style="vertical-align:top;" | <div style="text-align: center; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; color: {{{textcolor|black}}}">A token of thanks</div>

----

<div style="color:black; text-align:center;">Hi {{safesubst:<noinclude/>BASEPAGENAME}}! I've '''[[:meta:Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations/English Wikipedia active administrators|nominated you]]''' (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> ^{[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]} ~~<noinclude/>~<noinclude/>~~</div>

| [[File:O.snow2.png|100px|right|alt=A snowflake!]]

|}<!-- Template:Merchandise giveaway nomination --> [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:Nnadigoodluck@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mass_message_senders/Shell-0105&oldid=1063056307 -->

:Thank you! [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] ^{<small>[[User talk:Jayjg|<span style="color: DarkGreen;">(talk)</span>]]</small>} 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

== How we will see unregistered users ==

:User Rodw has already fixed this. By the way, hi!! I was away from Wikipedia for years but recently have been editing a little. Good to see someone still around. Currently I can't be reached by email, by the way. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 15:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

== FAR for Rudolf Vrba ==

<section begin=content/>

Hi!

I have nominated [[Rudolf Vrba]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rudolf Vrba/archive2|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]].<!--Template:FARMessage--> [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Category:Synagogues completed in 1843]]==

[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

A tag has been placed on [[:Category:Synagogues completed in 1843]] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a [[:Category:Disambiguation categories|disambiguation category]], a [[:Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories|category redirect]], under discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under [[WP:CSD#C1|section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion]].

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Category:Synagogues completed in 1843|visiting the page]] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000">✗</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:white;background:black;font-family:felix titling;font-size:80%">plicit</span>]] 06:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin '''will still be able to access the IP'''. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Improving tools|better tools]] to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation|read more on Meta]]. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors|subscribe]] to [[m:Tech/News|the weekly technical newsletter]].

We have [[m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation#IP Masking Implementation Approaches (FAQ)|two suggested ways]] this identity could work. '''We would appreciate your feedback''' on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can [[m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation|let us know on the talk page]]. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you.

/[[m:User:Johan (WMF)|Johan (WMF)]]<section end=content/>

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johan_(WMF)/Target_lists/Admins2022(2)&oldid=22532495 -->

== Menetrez ==

If you are going to reply to an archive, Ill reply here. Menetrez's column is '''not''' an article in CounterPunch. What is cited is in a book published by University of California Press. That is what David [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=1063358894&oldid=1063352558 removed]. The idea that Menetrez's critique of the situation isnt notable is a, irrelevant (it only matters if it has weight, not if it is notable), and incorrect. Menetrez's analysis itself is covered in other sources, it is itself a reliable source, and being a red linked biography doesnt really change that. I dont really understand how people, including you, are just blithely ignoring that sources that are not deprecated are being tossed aside because of the careless editing, or that there very clearly is edit-warring occurring (and no, nobody claimed a BLP exception). Anywho, hope you enjoyed your holidays, and if youd like to be informed when a case is filed on this as an interested party Id be happy to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)</small>

:{{u|Nableezy}: Yeah, I was writing the response and doing a bunch of other things, and when I finally hit "Publish changes", the section had been closed. Anyway, Menetrez's critique was originally published on CounterPunch; that's what Dershowitz was responding to. If the subsequent publication in the UC Press is ''not'' identical to that original article, then we don't have Dershowitz's response at all, which is one of the arguments being made for keeping the "Dershowitz" CounterPunch article. If the UC Press source ''is'' identical to the CounterPunch article, then we are still faced with what I described as "neither of them being notable", which, in policy terms, translates to them being [[WP:UNDUE]]; I should have been more clear in terms of Wikipedia terminology. I haven't seen much evidence of "careless editing" so far as regards these removals; most of them were good edits, removing sources that did not add value to the articles in question, which was almost inevitable ''given the nature of the websites publishing them''. These kinds of highly partisan sites provide little of value for Wikipedia as an '''encyclopedia''', though I'm sure they provide interesting reading for those whose biases align with them.

::In general, highly political articles attract bad article sourcing. By this I mean, rather than looking for the highest quality sources on the topic, instead editors with one POV/bias look for sources that support their POV, then editors with the opposite POV/bias look for sources to counter them, and we end up with a dog's breakfast filled with "he said, she said" political point-scoring. That appears to have happened when this part of the Dershowitz article was written, and efforts to rescue the deprecated source or undo this depreciation miss a very important point: the main purpose of deprecation is so that Wikipedians ''stop'' fighting to include specific unreliable sources.

::In this sense deprecation is analogous to banning users. A certain kind of banned editor likes to come back to Wikipedia using a sockpuppet to make "good" edits, then fulminate when their "good" edits are reverted. "See", they say, "there was no reason to revert this edit, that was stupid", when they point they're actually trying to make is "See, there was no reason to ban me, those who did so are stupid". Defenders of the individual or the edits then get upset that "good" edits are being removed, while those removing the edits say "but this editor is banned!". [[WP:BMB]] was made policy to stop people from fighting about this; Wikipedia has decided this editor should not be on Wikipedia regardless of the quality of their edits, and Wikipedians removing those edits should not have to waste time defending their removals. Deprecated source ≅ banned editor.

::As for "edit-warring", let's be honest: it was on both sides - the fact that you were there to back up Nishidani's reverts, or his yours, just means that you were able to divide the edit-warring between the two of you, as opposed to {{u|David Gerard}}, who did is on his own. Nobody came out of those disputes looking good. And to be even more honest, I don't think you would care if David wholesale or "carelessly" removed all citations to [[Breitbart News]] or [[VDare]] or most of the other [[WP:DEPSOURCES|deprecated sources]]; it's only when "your ox was gored" that you became concerned. Your issue is not with David's "careless editing", it's with CounterPunch's deprecation.

::Anyway, time to get off the soapbox. I only edit intermittently these days, but will try to keep an eye on this issue as it develops, and I appreciate your offer to keep me informed. Thanks also for your kind wishes; I hope you too enjoyed your holidays, and have a wonderful 2022! [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] ^{<small>[[User talk:Jayjg|<span style="color: DarkGreen;">(talk)</span>]]</small>} 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it was not identical, he expanded the original CP essay in to a much longer one. I still dont understand how somebody can argue that Dershowitz is not entitled to defend himself, and Im honestly a bit stunned at how the turns tabled here with me defending Dershowitz's right to a defense here and you saying toss it. As far as deprecation and policy, I dont actually see what policy was ever approved to support this. And I do think the idea that 4 editors at RSN one time can ban a website from all articles to be absolutely insane (FPM), or 15 for that matter (CP-the Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks). Would I ever cite FPM? No, of course not. But how deprecation has turned RSN into a voting booth is absolutely bonkers to me. But Jayjg, this started, for me at least, over [https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/01/13/how-the-fbi-spied-on-edward-said/ this] article used in [[Edward Said]]. It is astonishing to me that anybody can claim it is not a reliable source. It is cited over and over by other sources, '''all''' of them giving credit to that article for uncovering the FBI surveillance of Said. And it is insane to me that people are removing what is the most authoritative source by the most qualified expert in that article. I have pretty high standards for sources, but here this is the very best source on the topic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)</small>

==Franz Boas==

You left me a message saying: “Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Franz Boas has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did.”

My edit summary was very much to the point. The lede to the Boas article was hopelessly repetitious, and sounded like a fan boy page. You restored the repetitiousness, while making what sounded like a veiled threat. Then again, you make an open threat on your talk page, in order to intimidate people out of disagreeing with you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F|2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:B23E:3056:C884:B510:DE1E:181F#top|talk]]) 13:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Are you referring to that edit back in November? Yeah, your edit summary was inadequate; if you meant to remove repetitiousness then your edit summary should have said so, rather than the inaccurate and near-meaningless word "style". The very politely worded note on your talk page is a standard "canned" response, I didn't invent it, and there was no threat in it, veiled or otherwise. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] ^{<small>[[User talk:Jayjg|<span style="color: DarkGreen;">(talk)</span>]]</small>} 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Privacy policy Terms of UseDesktop

Date: 16 October 2024 7:02 PM

Username: Lowercase sigmabot III

Edit summary: Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43) (bot

Page size: 3,024 bytes

Change size: -874 bytes

This is a minor edit