Jump to content

User talk:Darkwind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkwind (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 11 July 2020 (that bot never worked anyway). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
  • The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend WW

Hope you don't mind I just deleted the tagged userpage as we've been just trying to DENY as much as possible per discussion here. He makes a new SP every other hour so I just tend to LTA block immediately and leave user and talk. Hope that's all good. Cheers. Glen 06:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And like clockwork... Glen 06:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glen: It's fine with me either way. The script I was using creates the user page automatically; I'll make sure to do it by hand if I come across any more. –Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Pro Wrestling Australia Draft

I take note of what you said in declining my application for move protection of Draft:Pro Wrestling Australia. I did tell him on his talk page not to do it again or he would be reported. He has made no attempt to improve the article at all (it is littered with fact tags and there is also a past AfD delete of the same promotion under a slightly different name). That is the main reason why I not only believe that it's not ready for publication, but I also believe that procedure should be enforced in this case. I am certain he moved it instead of improving it to stop it from being deleted per draft procedure at six months. The user also has a history of not discussing anything from what I can tell so it can be maintained that the move was made in bad faith. If you have any other ideas to ensure that he doesn't move it again in just under six months yet again I'll be happy to read it. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: The point I was trying to make is that there is no "procedure" that can "be enforced" here. Nobody is required to request a review of a draft before moving it to mainspace, even if it hasn't been substantially changed or improved since it was drafted. They boldly published it, you reverted them, now it's time to discuss it with them. As I mentioned, if they continue to move the page without discussing it, that can be taken up on a behavior noticeboard.
Let's assume for this discussion that the draft is in fact not ready to be published. (I have not reviewed it in detail, so I'll accept your assessment for now.) Move protecting the page places an unnecessary burden on the next editor who actually does take the time to improve the draft and get it ready to go live. Having to ask an admin to move the page or unprotect it may seem like a small hoop to jump through, but the protection policy is specifically written (in accordance with Wikimedia's founding principles) with the goal of placing as few of these technical restrictions in the way of editors as possible. Having to move the page back once every six months or so is, under policy, the preferred alternative.
In the absence of any discussion from the user, we must continue to assume good faith. So what if they are moving it back and forth to avoid deletion? Maybe they plan to improve it, but they don't have time to work on it right now. CSD G13 isn't exactly crucial to the success of the encyclopedia, and having the draft stick around for another six months or longer is not going to hurt anything. If they haven't posted anything on the draft talk page, maybe try writing them a non-template message on their talk page directly, to ask them what they plan to do with the draft. It couldn't hurt. –Darkwind (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would take too long to go looking for the history of the user concerned. All I can say is that he has a rep that IMHO has exhausted any right to AGF. That's why discussing it from my POV is a waste of time. I do know however that there isn't any point pursuing that without the detail. So I have an alternative suggestion. If he doesn't change anything and says nothing in the meantime, and moves it again into the main space I should nominate it for deletion for similar reasons to my original intention (previously deleted and not ready to be published). Addicted4517 (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES from User talk:Zinedinemay2006

@CaptainEek: Sorry for fragmenting the discussion, but I don't want to burden someone else's talk page with any discussion we might want to have about this. Yes, I'm familiar with SPECIESOUTCOMES, but AFD precedent does not excuse a sub-stub article with only two bare URLs for reference, much less a whole flood of them. Maybe if they were properly formatted with complete citations, but as it is, all this is doing is creating a flood of pending cleanup work to get these pages to a minimally useful state.

I think maybe my advice to this editor was a little too broad, because I did imply that individual species pages weren't generally useful. I meant that more for this specific case, and not in general. –Darkwind (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwind, Their articles were definitely disruptive, they made a real mess of things. But I think the issue was more the bad machine translation, formatting, and lack of communication, rather than the notability :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the Ronald_McDonald page

Hi! I don't normally make an RPP, but it seemed necessary to get the IP contributor to talk. Good news is that it probably wasn't necessary.

As I'm sure you know, doing any sort of recent-change (or pending-changes) patrol is a lot like herding cats, and you never know when it's best to chase 'em a little more or just let them go. As it stood with the Ronald_McDonald article, several of us were trying to stem the tide of unsourced changes, and just were not having any luck.

Anyway, I'm sorry I wasted your time with that minutiae, but I really appreciate you were willing to help!

Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UncleBubba: No problem. I think they had a valid point, but didn't know how to express it without being disruptive. –Darkwind (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohun Bagan A.C.

Can u revert the change in article name from ATK Mohun Bagan A.C. to its previous one Mohun Bagan A.C. and restore to Revision as of 15:16, 10 July 2020. ❯❯❯ S A H A 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw ur message in the article talkpage. I want to elaborate that. ATK (football club) is a club, and Mohun Bagan is another. in January it was announced that their football departments will merge. So, MB FC merged with ATK FC while Other departments of the club will operate as usual. There's a page on that ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. (check the citations in this page). Now, the page name of MB changed to ATK MB, which is incorrect. ❯❯❯ S A H A 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwind: there are multiple sources for the name in the new article.ATK Mohun Bagan F.C.
@ArnabSaha: No need to ping me on my own talk page, just so you know. Anyway, do any of those sources mentioned that the rest of Mohun Bagan (A.C.) is remaining separate? That's the part that should ideally be explicitly sourced. Either way, I don't particularly intend to get more involved in this situation, now that I've established a stable version of the article. I only suggest finding such a source in order to prevent further disruption when the protection expires. –Darkwind (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwind, oh sorry. I mistakenly pinged u here. the press release by the club says that another club has bought shares in its football club. leaving th other departments. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnabSaha: In that case, I would add a sentence to the article that explicitly says as much, perhaps at the end of the paragraph that talks about the merger of the football club, and cite it to the press release (this is one of the few times that a primary source is sufficient). Maybe something like, "The other activities and departments of Mohun Bagan AC will continue under that name and are not being merged."
Additionally, if the athletic club will not be conducting any football activities going forward, I would suggest that you move the football statistics either to a separate article (perhaps merge the information with History of Mohun Bagan A.C.) or to the article of the merged club under a section possibly called "pre-merger club histories" or something. The way it stands now, you have an article ostensibly about an athletic club that doesn't participate in football anymore, but the entire second half of the article is football lists and statistics, and doesn't say anything about the hockey or the cricket teams etc. –Darkwind (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one thing for sure has to be reverted, two pages of mb and atkmb cant remain like this. either update on mb with past tense and dissolving, or add all atkmb updates to mb page and keep only that (per tradition). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.7.48 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

189.172.79.167

Hi Darkwind,
This ip address that you have partially blocked has resume vandalizing/disruptive editing by changing episode titles against primary source (the official website) again on Paradise PD. — YoungForever(talk) 01:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YoungForever: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked them for another week. –Darkwind (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwind&oldid=967103799"