This user's talk page is monitoredbytalk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
To assess collateral better, {{checkuser needed}}. I had put a two-week block on the range Special:Contributions/112.202.0.0/17 because I had not seen any productive editing over the past week or so, and specific IPs on the range had already been blocked before. For that reason, I'm not apt to lift it unless there's a good bit of collateral that I'm not able to see owing to multiple logged-in users being on the range. If it's a very small number of trusted users, they could simply request WP:IPBE. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a fair bit of collateral here, and it's quite a large range for a hardblock anyway. I'm going to adjust your block down to Special:Contributions/112.202.96.0/20 which covers the vandal's activity at least in the timeframe that I can see, and that will consolidate some other blocks on this range that seem to be targeting the same LTA. I'm limited by policy in what I can say about Stvbastian, but I'll grant them IPBE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not supposed to modify your block without your permission, but I have blocked the smaller range, so I think your block is no longer necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.
The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
I've left a note at the U.S. 250th birthday about keeping the wonderful gif as its lead image. Given the quality of the gif, its defining attributes per the page topic which other images would have a hard time matching, and the fact that it's from the official Commission itself which is overseeing the 250th (as far as I know nobody from the Commission has complained that it is being misused). let's try to save this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Allreet and Gwillhickers would have an interest in this question. Please take a look at the links and websites, the video portion does seem to be hosted on the Semiquincentennial Commission's official website. No reason to lose this "perfect" opening image to the U.S. 250th birthday page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11,000 links to update! I have decided that this was a terrible idea, and we should both be trouted - you for proposing it, and me for closing it. (I haven't moved the article yet; I'm going to wait till all the links are updated) BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to crank out the changes using WP:DISAMASSIST; will make the changes over the next couple of days. In the meantime, I'm going to move the page, since the tool requires the dab to be at the base before it allows that. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm about to head out, and I have no wish to "supervise" any part of the process, but it seems clear to me that the process needs to be redone. Thanks so much, Drmies (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ps I am removing the warning, which I believe is mistaken, but I would like an answer to that question if you don't mind, please Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I asserted that you have. You pressed the editor on whether or not he has answered the question about his affiliations with the Catholic Church; regardless if he were to affirm that he were not Catholic (i.e. disavowing Catholicism) or if he responded that he is Catholic, it would not matter in terms of the underlying content dispute. Because Wikipedia does not require the former for his participation, your pressing him on this was unwarranted, and that sort of pressing should be avoided, as I noted on your talk page. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that I can discuss what I believe is happening except at a noticeboard, so the misunderstanding is understandable. I just wanted to know if anyone had discussed this with you. But for the record: I am Catholic. I do not care if he is Sikh or Hindu or Muslim or Catholic himself. He needs to base his editing on RS and that is the issue here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that you didn't get the notification because you've commented, you received a notification because since that comment a discussion you are involved in was added to the scope of the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you object but it seems to cover very similar ground and I was already talking to Clevermoss about it before you commented [3] (don't want it to seem personal, you know I respect the heck out of you). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite similar in scope; I agree that this sort of clarification would be helpful in the general sense, and listing more discussions where this occurs is more likely to get some sort of clarification one way or the other. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my comment *back* to where Headbomb had moved it from.
I also disagree on how appropriate the hatting was, given the unproductive nature of the hatted remarks. Maybe you can explain that to me . At your leisure. For now, it is 40 degrees here and I have had endless edit conflicts just getting that much in, so I am wandering off to stand under the garden hose. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you made this comment on RSN, you disconnected a thread of comments (beginning with Moxy's comment) from the root message that they were responding to. This is not in line with WP:TPO, as it deprives them of the original context and also breaks formatting.
If you intended to reply to this comment, you could start a new indented line below the others in the thread, as is typical in threaded discussion. If you intended to simply insert a top-line discussion item, then you could also insert it below, but without an indent.
The Noleander clarification request, in which you may have been involved, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:
Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.
Hello, Red-tailed hawk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Wing-T".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Seems like a mildly unfair ban. I fully understand the rules, and please see the link I posted to the talk page of nableezy if that's what you're referring to. I would appeal if I had wanted to. I think its pretty clear to anyone who reads my full statement that I understand the rules, specifically after a clarification was made which was not readily understandable previously. No hard feelings though :) JoeJShmo💌02:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fair; you were put on noticebyScottishFinnishRadish that future violations of the ECR would be met with sanctions, you still continued to violate it after admins clarified the scope of what was acceptable and advised you to edit in other areas. The only restriction that this ban imposes that is not imposed by the extended-confirmed restriction is that you are no longer permitted to make requested edits to talk pages in the Arab-Israeli conflict area until such a time that you are extended-confirmed. I think that giving you clearer guidance on this is a way to prevent future violations of the ECR, until such a time that the ECR no longer applies to you by virtue of you being extended-confirmed. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, it hadn't been clarified at all, there was actually a discussion going on about it at village pump. I had not been informed by SFR that common practice was to treat even explanatory responses as violations until after this Arb discussion, and if he had insinuated it somewhere I didn't pick up on that. I also didn't know that we fall back on policy in the case of doubt in a commonly accepted exception, and even if I had, I didn't realize the edit request exception was not actually laid out in policy. In light of all the above, I would posit that I'm much more aware of the exact rules now, and a ban is, as I said, mildly unfair. Thinking about it more though, it's alot to follow, and I could've made all this clearer in my statement, so I don't blame you for banning me. JoeJShmo💌02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents- Considering the ban was intended, and justified by RTH, because of a concern in understanding the rules of EC, it would be very arbitrary to decide to give a ban when that concern no longer exists. New justification would have to be provided for a concern in disruptive editing. JoeJShmo💌09:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, it lasted all of a few minutes/edits to reach 500 and then promptly began to edit the topic area in a very POVish manner. Since a lot of these edits were gained as a result of arguing about why ARBECR shouldn't apply, I think a counter reset would be good. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call arguing, I actually took as learning. And your characterization of my edits as POVish is subjective; I believe they were fair and good edits, most of which will probably be put back in place after a discussion. However, I do think that in the future for the sake of saving time I will open a discussion first, as I'm learning that even the most obviously warranted edits will be immediately reverted if it is not in favor of a certain POV. JoeJShmo💌10:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Doug. Would you mind pointing out what you believe I am unclear on that has already been discussed? Vague statements are hard for me to respond to. JoeJShmo💌11:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured articleonDeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.
