Fabrickator

One other point if I may, much of the information onthe Wiki page regard this Company is outdated if you click through to some of the reference links you will see they are gone. Much of it from over 10 years ago that is no longer applicable.

I have read WP_DR as you suggested so we can better attempt to get resolve (apologies as I am a Wikipedia novice). If accuracy is not a critical to an encyclopedia please explain to me what we should be striving for with this site? I simply documented factual, verifiable information on the Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grocke2 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Grocke2 Your edit contains the following points and parts:

• memberships are available (at most locations) on a subscription basis for a specified monthly fee with a "low" initial fee.
• there is a "savings guarantee"
• DirectBuy no longer uses objectionable "high-pressure" sales practices
• link to a newspaper article about the "changed" DirectBuy
• links to pages on the DirectBuy website regarding membership pricing and the "savings guarantee".

Notably missing from the information on membership fees is the amount of the initial fee. This makes it unclear as to just how different this is from the previous membership pricing. Programs such as the "savings guarantee" are typically of very limited value due to the restriction that it applies only to an identical item. Also, the promised savings under this guarantee are evidently subject to change at the whim of DirectBuy (there's nothing that says it isn't, so I presume it is).

We actually can't even talk about a "neutral point of view" because the only sources are the company itself and a "puff piece" that's presented from the viewpoint of DirectBuy which, as such, cannot be considered a "verifiable source". And as for that newspaper article, given the nature of the article, I would consider that even linking to it from the article is objectionable, because it's tantamount to "extending" the Wikipedia article to include the newspaper article without that being subject to editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

The claims that DirectBuy no longer uses "high-pressure" sales practices (presumably they no longer threaten that you must sign up today or you won't be able to buy later), but that doesn't mean they don't use other high-pressure tactics.

Any source that puts DirectBuy in a positive light is going to need to incoprporate the same level of research and analysis, and address the same points as the Consumer Reports article did. This requirement cannot be overcome by having DirectBuy commission an article claiming that its current offering now really benefits its customers; any claims to that effect must be the subject of critical examination. Fabrickator (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator Understand your point that what is missing is the initial fee but nevertheless the membership fees as described in 2007 (nearly 10 years ago) are not accurate. In terms of savings guarantees I disagree that the fact it must be identical items makes it of limited value and not worthy of being included in any new view of the Company. Any reasonable person would assume we need to talk apples-to-apples when offering such a guarantee. In terms of Consumer Reports, I also disagree a for profit publication acts as the baseline for what level of research and analysis is required. The newspaper article referenced is a peer publication to CR and should be given the same weight. There is no evidence to support the Company "commissioned" a "puff piece" or otherwise. In summary, I come back to accuracy of the page and the fact that Wikipedia is not a current and accurate representation of the Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grocke2 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Grocke2 I think further discussion between us is unlikely to be productive, so which do you prefer: WP:THIRDOPINION or WP:DRN (or something else, perhaps WP:RFC)? Fabrickator (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

In reviewing your edit revert of my addition to the aforementioned topic, I noticed you have quite an interest in age of consent vis-à-vis articles on WP. In any case, I wonder why you think that the addition of this particular passage was "extraneous [and/or] inaccurate":

In overturning sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)^[1] invalidated Michigan’s law which set a different age of consent for male/male and female/female acts.

I suppose your saying that my first paragraph is extraneous is acceptable reasoning, if somewhat pedantic. However, perhaps you could show me a link to something that contradicts what I wrote in the second? Or maybe you have personal knowledge of something I don't as a Michigan resident. I ask this because I researched this issue fairly thouroughly before adding that paragraph to the article, and what I understand to be true doesn't jibe with your revert. Barring that, I'd be obliged to re-add the blockquoted section, and assuming you remove it again we'd have a 3RR situation. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Lawrence v. Texas completely invalidates the Michigan law against sodomy, then the mention of Lawrence v. Texas is extraneous because the statement that the age of consent is 16 is accurate as written. OTOH, if Lawrence v. Texas only invalidates this law when there are no minors involved, then it's inaccurate.

Perhaps you feel there's a need to anticipate the question of someone who's aware of the anti-sodomy law and who may or may not be aware of Lawrence v. Texas, but I think adding this detail in-line doesn't serve the purpose of the page very well. If it were the case that the anti-sodomy law still applies to sex involving minors, it's certainly important to include that here, but if it doesn't apply, I don't think we need to get into the tangle of reasoning that: (1) there's a law against sodomy, (2) said law is overturned by Lawrence v. Texas except that (3) Lawrence v. Texas doesn't apply to minors, but (4) that exception doesn't apply because (for the sake of argument) the law is overturned as a whole, not only as it applies to sex between consenting adults. Fabrickator (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I can accept all those points. If Lawrence applies only to adults, and not consenting partners of whatever age (and IANAL), then it could't apply to what I was trying to say.

However, there is a statute in MCL, and I can't find it right now due to time, that does seem to bear out my point, though it is rather convoluted in wording (more so than others). It also has to be taken into context with the basic AoC statutes, which is venturing into WP:OR and maybe even WP:CK. The consensus that same-sex relations were previously illegal below 18 but are now legal at 16, was held at more than one site I read, but none satisfied my reference yardstick. Again, the problem of synthesis.

I concede, at best it has become a circular, difficult argument; at worst, the basic claim — while perhaps true irrespective of Lawrence — can't be proven right now. Thanks for the reply. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   21:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The act of forgery is not recognized as a crime by the criminal law of Scotland. So no it is not a crime. Criminal liability only results in the uttering of such a forgery as genuine. In Scotland, I could forge your signature and your will and neither would be an illegal act until I tried to convince someone else (likely for a fraudulent purpose, of course) that they were authentic. The distinction is important as in some other jurisdictions the forging of another person's signature is in and of itself a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunlar (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&oldid=674482839&diff=prev

The point the lawyer site is making is that it doesn't count as a sexual offense. Even though the reason why a "corruption of minors" charge could be brought has to do with intercourse with no other factors and no incidence of rape, it's not actually categorized as a sexual offense.

I invite you to re-read what they say: http://www.premierdefensegroup.com/blog/pennsylvania-age-of-consent/ - A corruption of minors charge isn't categorized as a sexual offense, so it doesn't change the "age of consent" in regards to statutory rape. It's categorized as something separate

Considering Wikipedia's mission anyway is to describe what other people say in secondary sources, we should err on what secondary sources say. Avoiding original research is paramount. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I found this:

• Smerconish, Michael. "The Pulse: Coming forward on abuse helps the community." Philadelphia Inquirer. August 5, 2011.
• "A 50-year-old former squash coach at a private suburban school is facing charges based on his allegedly having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student. He's charged with corruption of a minor and endangering the welfare of a child. There are no statutory-rape charges pending as the age of consent in the commonwealth is 16." (emphasis mine)

Therefore unless another secondary source explicitly says the age of consent is 18 because of the corruption of minors law, Wikipedia should follow what the Inquirer does and say "the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16" WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had looked at the lawyer's web page for the assertion that it "doesn't count" as a sexual offense. I presume you're referring to the responses provided by B Free. So it doesn't "count" as a "sex crime", but it counts as a crime. As to cited sources, I would cite the very same page from this lawyer. The Wikipedia article uses a specific definition of "age of consent", and it matters not one whit that a source uses the phrase "age of consent" to mean something else, as long as the facts provided by the source support the facts presented in the Wikipedia article. To wit:

When the alleged victim is 16 or older and less than 18 years of age, and the alleged offender is over the age of 18, the Commonwealth may charge the offense of corruption of minors or unlawful contact with a minor, even if the activity was consensual.

So for example, a 25-year-old can be charged under corruption of minors for having had sex with someone under the age of 18, but could not be charged for having had sex with someone at least 18 (notwithstanding other exceptions). For the purposes of this article, that makes the age of consent in Pennsylvania be 18, regardless of how many sources state that the "Pennsylvania age of consent" is 16. Fabrickator (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The issue is then the Wikipedia definition itself can be challenged (as in it can be modified depending on how other sources: legal textbooks, etc. define "statutory rape"), and/or a case may be made that the "Wikipedia definition" should be tossed aside in regards to Pennsylvania because the secondary sources say that 16 is the age of consent.

• A former prosecutor explained it like this: "JoAnne Epps, dean of academic affairs at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, said that even though a teenager can legally consent to sex, corruption of the morals of a minor gives prosecutors authority to file charges for inappropriate relationships. "They are different crimes," said Epps, a former prosecutor. "Having sex with a 16-year-old may not necessarily be statutory rape, but that's irrelevant in determining whether a person is guilty of corrupting the morals of a minor.""

If need be I can consult the WP:OR noticeboard.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I took a look at the specific definition at "Age of consent in North America" - While I believe it would be good to cite sources, what it says: "The age of consent is the age at or above which a person is considered to have the legal capacity to consent to sexual activity." does not conflict with what they are saying about Pennsylvania's law: the minors can consent at 16, but the adults can be charged with a separate crime of corrupting morals. The Inquirer article even says "Those charged with corrupting the morals of a minor also may be convicted by the behavior alone, meaning prosecutors do not have to prove that the behavior actually corrupted a minor, lawyers say." WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my experience is kind of limited, so I don't get the significance of consulting WP:OR noticeboard. However, I do think you're doing real serious harm to the "Age of Consent" page. I would suggest that there's tons of stuff on this page that violates the "original research" rule, though the "ignore all rules" rule hasn't been repealed, has it? It doesn't sound like you're going to "see the light", so I would suggest raising this to dispute resolution. If somebody's going to damage stuff, we should at least get some consensus from on high to do the damage. BTW, what's this about "statutory rape"? The page is not per se about statutory rape, and only a small number of states even use that term. As for having a definition of "age of consent" just for the purpose of this article, it is nonsense to suggest that definitions found elsewhere would somehow "challenge" a definition specified just for this article. Fabrickator (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The OR noticeboard is a part of the dispute resolution process. It's to determine whether something is considered "original research" or not. Wikipedia:No original research is one of the three core content policies. While we have "IAR", the community is adamant that original research be not used. BTW primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, but they are to be used carefully, without original interpretations. What I'm saying is that saying "Pennsylvania's age of consent is actually 18 because of its corruption of minors law" would be original research because it's not a conclusion reached from published sources about the topic. The published sources do mention the corruption of minors law, and they do discuss it in relation to Pennsylvania's age of consent, but they don't say the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 18.

Actually I think that going to the secondary sources is going to greatly improve such pages: we would see how these laws are applied in practice and what they mean. People will see both the primary sources and the secondary sources. If some laws are unclear we would know who is saying they are unclear, and how and why they are unclear.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that the operational definition for the "age of consent" articles is on any of the pages, but it can be inferred from context. But the fact that you so misconstrue the definition of "age of consent" as stated suggests to me that you literally don't understand. I would ask you as nicely as I can to cease and desist from these edits, but I suspect that is not your wont, which is sad for those who come to this page in hopes of finding specific information about the "age of consent" (whatever that may mean) in a particular locale. You would deprive them of that. Fabrickator (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

People will find the specific information, including clarifications, when they read the article sourced with secondary sources in addition to primary sources. I hope that people understand that if people need serious legal advice they should consult a lawyer. Nonetheless the sources such as the Inquirer make it clear that people can and do get charged and convicted of "corruption of minors" for sexual acts with 16 and 17 year olds. It's simply that they are not thought of as violations of "age of consent". WhisperToMe (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I hope this footnote helps: Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#cite_note-62 - Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State laws that way people who don't read the article carefully will still get the needed information WhisperToMe (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have removed an erroneous statement made here (without attribution, although the statement was made by a known sockpuppet) regarding the age of consent in Texas. Fabrickator (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted this edit warring threat that was posted by a sock puppet. Fabrickator (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

D

In the "Role in Society" section:

cite journal|author=Zeinelabdin, A. R. |year=1996|journal=Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries|volume= 17|issue =3–4|pages=1–40

title: Poverty in OIC Countries: Status, Determinants and Agenda for Action

See http://www.sesric.org/files/article/53.pdf

Fabrickator (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned about the sea change to the page LGBT conservatism by user AHC300. There are many that seem to be knowledgeable about European matters, but the first things that this user did was change all occurrences of "conservative" with "right-wing", an action that equivocates the political leanings of at least half the people in the developed world with what I see as a pejorative term, and trying to move the page to "LGBT right", and add a section that links to fascism.

There are numerous edits by this user almost every day, and I fear that this page has been turned into something that demonizes LGBT people that aren't Progressive or at least liberal, and covering those edits with scores of minor succeeding edits, although some of his/her worst changes have been reverted or refused.

This user doesn't have a main page and his/her Contributions are limited to to this page (and details for Zoophilia maps, possibly on Legality of bestiality by country or territory), which tells me that this user is very possibly a sockpuppet. But it's not possible from what I find on Wikipedia to determine whether this person is a sincere editor with a forgivable political bias, or a vandal of the "LGBT conservatism" page. Note that an attempt to move "Zoophile rights by country or territory" to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory," similarly changing a more-or-less neutral term (Zoophile) to a more pejorative term (bestiality) was approved. And, further edits of the site by this user seem knowledgeable and responsible, if you ignore his/her preference for pejorative terms.

I have an entry on the Talk page that proposes to do a global change of "right-wing" to "conservative" that is a couple of weeks old now; there have been no responses. I don't have the time or inclination to get into an edit war. Nor am I knowledgeable about the LGBT community or politics of any demographic. What is the responsible way to go here, as per the Wikipedia culture? I'm considering just making the global change "right-wing" to "conservative" and then letting the process work from there. -motorfingers- 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@User motorfingers: I agree that these changes are disturbing. I'm not actually as concerned about the change to the terms used as I am about what is a virtual "takeover" of the page (can you say "repeal and replace"?). Creating a new page is subject to some degree of "vetting" and approval, but taking over a page this way circumvents this process.

I should offer a disclaimer that I'm very junior here, I have very limited familiarity with Wikipedia processes, I generally find myself "at odds" with Wikipedia policies, and in my experience, requests for comment and various other approaches to mediating disagreements do not seem to work very well. Now more to the point, I don't believe that the success of Wikipedia can be personally dependent on me. If I am the only one who would step in to prevent bad changes from being made to a page, then Wikipedia is in trouble.

Like you, I don't want to make the commitment to chase down the whole process to defend my position. For the reason stated above (the "takeover" of the page), my opinion is that the entirety of those changes should be reverted. But there's not enough in it for me to make this commitment. Given that you seem to have similar feelings about how much time you're willing to spend, I might suggest you raise this issue at WP:Teahouse (or maybe [WP:Village pump]] is really the right place), in hopes that you can get some better clarity about what should be done. Fabrickator (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm even more junior than you, apparently, because this is the first I've heard about WP:Village pump. I'll look into it. At first blush, it will take some work to locate something that addresses page takeovers. This isn't the first page takeover incident I've seen recently; the principal author of Geodesics on an ellipsoid has been dealing with someone who came in and vandalized the page, then trolled the talk page, etc. I found the page crucial in some work I was doing and changes by the usurper would destroy that by removing derivations and algorithm descriptions for solutions. The usurper has been successful in getting some information removed. Wikipedia would benefit by measures that protects products of busy creative people who want to share here. -motorfingers- 06:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I took it up in the Policy tab of the Teahouse. -motorfingers- 08:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get back to edit the page until recently. When I checked out the page I find that the normal editing process currently results in a reasonable compromise. Extension of the subject matter, or at least the headings, is to other political areas beyond "conservative" but the blurring of everything into far right and fascist seems to be gone, or at least moderated.

A separate point that was brought to my attention by a more experienced author is that my signature did not link back to my user page and the talk link was missing; see previous signatures. Apparently adding the hyphen prefix and suffix broke the script that makes the links. I fixed that. I see that your username seems to be red-linked in your signature, although the talk link is OK. -- motorfingers : Talk 13:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Note: I edited motorfingers' first post in this discussion to remove the transclusion of a user page. Because that user page was tagged as belonging to a sockpuppet, the transclusion was causing your talk page to appear in the same sockpuppet category. There's nothing more you need to do; this is simple tidying up. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bradley Cooper. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

How is it "obviously true" that Michael Moore has a podcast that started in 2019? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's "obviously true" in the sense that one can quickly find confirmatory information using a web search e.g. with the following search terms:

michael-moore first-rumble-podcast

It should also be pretty obvious that arbitrarily deleting any content you come across merely because it's unsourced would be more disruptive than helpful. Fabrickator (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, Please see WP:V. We must cite sources here and do not publish original research. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: Doing a web search to locate a supporting source is not "original research", it's the opposite!

If you want to "do something" about an unsupported claim, you have choices, but you are expected to exercise reasonable judgement. So you might:

* attempt to locate a source supporting the claim, and add the citation

* tag the claim as "citation needed"

* delete the claim if you think it is dubious ... but remember, WP:AGF

Repeated exercise of poor judgement resulting in edits that are "more disruptive than helpful" would be a reasonable basis for sanctions. Fabrickator (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, Yes, doing the web search is not original research but including something in Wikipedia without a source is. That was the problem with this addition. There are no sanctions for removing unsourced information per WP:V. If someone comes along to write "mayonnaise cures cancer", it's not incumbent upon me to prove that it's false. I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ^[1] ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: Characterizing my objection as tantamount to supporting "random speculation" is disingenuous. It would take very little thought to just type "rumble" and "michael moore" into a search engine you would quickly see evidence suggesting that it was true that Michael Moore actually has a podcast called "Rumble". We can ignore the details because this does not appear to be contentious nor does it reflect negatively on anybody.

Yes, WP:V states that "material lacking a reliable source ... may be removed", but WP:V also includes statements that are inconsistent with your removal of this content:

* material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed

** (why not just say "material that does not have a source may be removed"?)

* contentious material about living people [which is] unsourced ... should be removed immediately

** (presumably, if it's not contentious or not about living people, then it should not be removed immediately)

There are those who believe that every dispute on WP can be resolved by reference to the rules, but the fact is, Wikipedia has so many rules, you could probably justify almost any change you make. (shifting into philosophical mode) The WP rules are not complete, they are derived from a set of higher principles. These principles are not spelled out, because the novice would try to argue them, but interpretation of these principles requires wisdom which the novice may lack. I will not invite you to pursue this further (i.e. neither to continue in this practice of removing unsourced material "immediately", nor to further continue this argument), but I shall caution you: Do not test the Gods of Wikipedia! Fabrickator (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, Your bizarre threats aside, WP:V is a very fundamental policy. Please don't add unsourced material to Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: On its face, your response seems to imply that I have added unsourced content. Just what unsourced content do you allege that I added? As I have pointed out, WP:V calls for immediate removal of content which meets very specific criteria, and by the immediate removal of content which did not meet those criteria, you violated (at least the apparent intent of) WP:V. Fabrickator (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, It's true that I implied that, so I should retract and clarify: do not add unsourced material in the future (whether you have done so previously or not) and please do not tacitly encourage others to do so by complaining about how the burden of proof is on others to cite claims made by someone else. You cite these "specific criteria" that frankly don't exist and the page reads: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." which is exactly what you did. Please don't do that anymore. Once you re-added material that someone else added, you directly contradicted the injunction, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Whether you initially added unsourced info or simply reverted to add it back in is immaterial. I respect that you were (probably?) not the person who initially added this, but it's a distinction without a difference. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: You have both taken the rule too literally, and ignored the context (i.e. you have ignored other parts of the rule).

The criteria for immediate removal (as specified in WP:V) are...

contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced

I would suggest this is incomplete, but the point is that the "permission to remove" content (i.e. if it's unsourced) is distinct from "permission to immediately remove" content. That is, you must post the "challenge", and so your removal without first posting the challenge was wrongful and reverting it was absolutely proper.

(I think these rules are in need of further refinement ... I would only allow removal if you have a good faith belief that the information is not verifiable. Having added the "citation needed" annotation provides fair warning enough that the information has not been verified... but we are arguing the rules in their current form, not how we think they might be improved.)

WP:V also states

any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation

Is it not clear from this that, provided the material is not "likely to be challenged", that a citation is not actually required until such time as the material is actually challenged? Fabrickator (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, Nothing obliges me to "post the challenge". Please don't add unsourced information to Wikipedia. I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ^[1] ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: I guess I missed the rule that said that Jimmy Wales statements are forever to be regarded as "law" on Wikipedia, without further amendment or interpretation. ... but you're literally mis-applying the quote, which refers to "random speculative ... pseudo-information."

While you point out that WP:V is among the most fundamental of rules on WP, you say that I am tearing it down. I am not acting to tear down this rule, I am acting to fulfill it. Now, if it were actually appropriate under WP:V to delete any content which does not include a proper citation, why isn't the policy called "Citation Required" instead of "Verifiability"?

In reverting your edit which deleted an actually-verifiable statement, I was demonstrating by example the better way to deal with a verifiable fact which merely lacks a citation. This is permissible in accordance with WP:Five_pillars#WP:5P5: It is the principles and spirit [which] clearly matter more than literal wording... sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.'

And that's just what I was doing. You are part of Wikipedia, and by demonstrating the best application of WP:V, I was attempting to improve you. Fabrickator (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, I appreciate that you're trying to continually move goalposts and find every bit of nuance for how it's okay to put unsourced information in Wikipedia but it's not. Don't do it. If you find it, please remove it, as it should have never been there in the first place. "you say that I am tearing it down". No I'm not. "the better way to deal with a verifiable fact which merely lacks a citation" Great: find the citation. I don't know about you but I only have 24 hours in my day, so I can't spend all of it saying, "Hm, this other person claimed that shrimp come from the Moon: I'll investigate since in principle, it can be verified." If you like running down every piece of unsourced info and adding the source, that is great. If you want to keep on adding or re-adding unsourced info, that is not. I don't have the bandwidth you do to check up on all the claims made on this site, so I'll budget my time for removing unsourced information which is what we should do: either remove it by deleting it or "remove" it by making it sourced. Both strategies are fine but I know which one I'm apt to choose. Category:All articles with unsourced statements has a little under 400,000 entries and those are just the ones that have been identified. Some of those go back 14 years (which I am removing now): that's preposterous. Allowing random speculation, hearsay, and otherwise unsourced claims for a decade and a half is equivalent to just allowing it indefinitely. I do not thank you for your attempts to "improve" me: I'll pass on that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: You are not doing the Wikipedia community favors by deleting verifiable content (and including unsourced content does not of itself constitute WP:OR). You wrote:

... in principle, [shrimp coming from the moon] can be verified.

This statement is either disingenuous, or else you're admitting to being unable to differentiate between dubious and not so dubious statements. Besides, wouldn't you like to research this so you can learn about the delicious meal offerings coming soon to Spacex passengers?

In any case, even if you were to work on Wikipedia 24 hours a day trying to fix problems, this would barely make a dent in the backlog. It should be obvious that it is better to make a positive impact on a few articles than to make a negative impact on many articles. Fabrickator (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, The nice thing about verifiable content is that I don't have to be the judge of how dubious or not so dubious a statement is. My goal as a reader and editor is not to judge truth but verifiability, which are two different things. Per WP:OR: "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." If you add material without sources, I shouldn't have to decipher if it can be verified or not: it's functionally identical to original research even if it technically is not actually original research. I have no clue what you are rambling about with Space X. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: Maybe SpaceX will be offering shrimp appetizers on board. On an unrelated point, wasn't there something in the Jimmy Wales' "zero information" rant about how some editors should be kicked off the project? I kind of get his point. Fabrickator (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, I don't think you should be kicked off the project, I just think that you should stop inserting unsourced information. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: You apparently have me confused with someone else whom you apparently feel acts in a manner detrimental to WP, whereas almost all of my efforts on WP relate to improving citations to existing content. Fabrickator (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, The bizarre implication that someone should be kicked off the project (which you could not provide a citation for other than misremembered hearsay) was your idea, not mine. I look forward to many productive years working with you and both of us not adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: How do we know whether or not the story about the mural jointly painted by 5,000 children was true, or whether somebody just hoaxed the press agency? But aside from Guinness, who really cares? A bootleg Beatles album, however, even if it's actually a hoax, that's going to be of great interest to a lot more people. In any case, this is Wikipedia, and people know (or they're supposed to know) that regardless of WP:V, WP is unreliable, to the point that "verifiability" is treated as being more important than the facts. And notwithstanding Jimbo's perspective, omission of relevant facts can be just as deceptive as inclusion of false statements. Fabrickator (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, We don't: that's why we have sources. And I care. Maybe the integrity of Wikipedia doesn't matter to you and maybe you're fine with hoaxes, nonsense, lies, and rumor on this project but I'm not. Wikipedia is only as "unreliable" as its editors and those of us who add this kind of material make it be a worse reference work. And yes, verifiability is more important than the facts: see as I wrote above, "My goal as a reader and editor is not to judge truth but verifiability, which are two different things." Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is true but a record of human knowledge, which itself includes gaps, lacunae, biases, etc. I also agree that the omission of relevant facts is a really bad thing but there are infinite facts and we don't have sources for all of them, so we need to have discrimination about what we include (e.g. no trivia or very fringe theories, etc.) and there will inevitably be a great many relevant, true things that we cannot include in the encyclopedia because they are not sourced. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: Looking over Manually coded language, even with just the bits you have removed so far, this article seems likely to quickly lose coherence due to removal (and potential removal) of unsourced content. Someone with specialized knowledge would be needed both to find appropriate sources or to otherwise maintain the coherence of the page. In the absence of some qualified volunteer to figure this out, it seems like this page really needs to be deleted. Thoughts? Fabrickator (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, Sounds like it should be a stub with the bits that we can salvage and we should post to a relevant WikiProject talk page to solicit feedback. Specialized topics are even more important when it comes to verifiability and accuracy. Do you want to collaborate on it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: No, I am not interested in collaborating on such an effort. While you might view my efforts at repairing the results of some of your content deletions as a form of cooperation, I am merely trying to repair the damage you have caused. In this case, I am pointing out that there is additional "collateral damage" that actually needs to be considered. Claims do not always stand alone, and when you remove a claim, the remaining sequence of statements may no longer make sense.

Since you're the one removing the claim, then it's on you to figure that out. You can't just rely on "I was only following the rules." Content is not always merely a sequence of independent statements of purported fact, and if you remove something in the middle (or possibly at the beginning or even at the end), then you may need to make other changes for the article to retain its coherence. Rather than merely noting the lack of a valid source, you decided to delete that content, and it's incumbent upon you to address this rather than just leave a mess for others to clean up.

This is consistent with my assertion that some of your edits have been more harmful than helpful to WP, and that they are therefore sanction-worthy, but that's just my opinion. Fabrickator (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, I'm confused as to what, in principle, you expect someone to think when he reads, "Content is not always merely a sequence of independent statements of purported fact". Your word salad is just a bunch of excessively long Latin-derived ways of saying, "I don't like you". It's not "damage" to remove unsourced statements. Please grow up. It's also not my responsibility to fix someone else's mistakes but that is exactly what I'm doing by removing unsourced info. Feel free to propose sanctions against me for removing unsourced claims: I'd get a kick out of that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf: The idea of a "sequence of statements" where each statement makes sense only in the context of the immediately preceding statement, that is a concept that you describe as "word salad"? If you remove an intermediate statement from as sequence of dependent statements, then the whole sequence makes no sense. What do Latin-derived words have to do with anything? Did I insert "quid pro quo" in there somewhere? Fabrickator (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, You're talking high-falutin' to come across as condescending. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Koavf:You have lost me. High-falutin? "Intermediate"? "Incumbent"? "Purported"? "Dependent statements"? "Coherence"? Fabrickator (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fabrickator, You'll get there: I'll provide citations from now on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

An update regarding a statement to the effect that my assertion that Jimbo stated some people should be kicked off the project is both a "bizarre implication" and "unsupported hearsay". Here is the primary source: post by Jimmy Wales. Fabrickator (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I said it bluntly in two letters. PR. It reads like advertising, especially with tone/primary sourcing. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ViperSnake151: Sorry for my oversight of the WP:PR explanation. If the listing of these awards was misleading at some point in time, in light of the failing condition of this bank, this becomes informative, i.e. it demonstrates that such awards do not necessarily bode well for business success. It's actually "promotional" (i.e. it shields the awards from criticism) to hide this fact by deleting the awards now. Fabrickator (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

When I first read your edit summary about content being a hoax, I thought "Mars" the planet. Ha, silly me! Good catch! S0091 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020‎ (UTC)Reply

@S0091: Ha ha, I think we need some leaps forward in our infrastructure to allow for an efficient way of managing businesses on an interplanetary basis. Hey, thanks for noticing! Fabrickator (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why not include USA state laws against bestiality in Sodomy section? It appears to support old false ideation that homosexuality is akin to deviant status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4080:5090:C085:E96D:B3B1:E6C8 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will start with the caveat that I believe the "ages of consent" pages ought to be deleted from Wikipedia, the reason being the prohibition on having a suitable disclaimer customized for these pages. Notwithstanding general disclaimers to the effect that the information here cannot be relied upon, the presence of these pages is perilous to Wikipedia's future.

As to your proposal, I get where you are coming from, to wit, that these pages should be renamed "prohibitions of consensual sex" pages, the age of your partner being just one such restriction. This proposal would further dismiss the idea that the "ages of consent" pages have a singular purpose: Will I get in trouble with the law merely for having consensual sex with this particular person (who happens to be of a certain age)?"

Anyway, an emphatic "no"! The "ages of consent" pages have already lost their way, and your proposal would further exacerbate this problem. Fabrickator (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The fact that you spell the word lead wrong ever single time you use it shows that I cannot, and will not, take your comment seriously, period. The reason I used another article as a template is because it shows that it is in a group of articles. I am speaking in lieu of the comment you left on another users talk page, and the comment you left on the talk page for the article in question. I also think it is a very good lead, definitely better than the original one. I think it is enough for the article itself. Lindjosh (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

For reference, the comment in question is here. Fabrickator (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you think "cloverleaves" is "apparently considered acceptable," you have no idea what you're talking about.

Go search on Google Books for the two spellings (use quotation marks to make sure it searches for the exact spellings). Notice how "cloverleafs" returns a vast number of documents written by American civil engineers specializing in highways (people who use the term "cloverleaf" every day), plus a handful of documents from people in other fields.

The vast majority of documents returned for "cloverleaves" are from all kinds of weird contexts where highways are not the central topic of the document -- a environmental impact statement for a regional transit system, a forestry manual, aeromedical research reports, an anti-tax manifesto, novels, and personal memoirs. The obvious inference is that the latter usage is an erroneous spelling by people who are not accustomed to using the term regularly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Coolcaesar: Hmmmm, I haven't seen people split threads like this. "Your place or mine?"

I am surprised to see someone with your level of WP experience calling this vandalism. You should know that this word implies a malicious intent. There's a slightly lesser term (not necessarily a "formal" WP term), "willful negligence", implying that somebody who should have known better made a change that doesn't conform to WP.

But changing "cloverleaf" to "cloverleaves" is neither. It is (at least plausibly) a good faith edit. My basis for this is that, regardless of what the preferred form of the plural of "cloverleaf" is, "cloverleaves" is acceptable (dictionaries commonly show this as an acceptable plural of "cloverleaf", wiktionary shows it, and it is also consistent with how plurals are formed in English; when one makes an edit that they actually believe improves the article, that is a GFE. (Notwithstanding that, if I were put in charge, I would wage war on this as a "frivolous" edit. We should discourage frivolous edits because the WP editor community does not have time for such frivolous edits.) Fabrickator (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Fabrickator. You have new messages at Talk:Love Jihad.
Message added 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to discuss this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am considering warning Valamont(?) on the love jihad page of admin abuse, but wanted to know your thoughts on whether this is justified as yet. They have misattributed my stance, are inconsistent with their reasoning for enforcing deletions, and refuse to acknowledge that their understanding of the matter is incongruent with expert opinion. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

What I generally note is that disputes are mostly resolved on the basis of who has the more effective intimidating tactics, and that such intimidating tactics are most effectively employed by those who have a particular view they want to push. Another point is that there is over-reliance on WP policies... you will virtually find nobody advocating the highest rule of wikipedia: WP:IAR (the underlying rule being that whatever is advocated should improve WP). Perhaps that's consistent with my disdain for majority rule. The majority of people who vote are probably not going to give the issue of dispute a great deal of deep thought.

By way of example, I have a disagreement about whether Michael Moore's theory that Trump may have been faking his having become infected with Covid-19 is properly called a "conspiracy theory". Plenty of reliable sources referred to it as a conspiracy theory, but I contend that they are expressing an opinion (of sorts) in calling it a conspiracy theory, and that an objective analysis would conclude it is not a conspiracy theory. But when put to a vote, I suspect most editors would simply see that reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory, and vote that it is proper to apply that term.

I am not optimistic that a warning of "admin abuse" will have any useful result. I suggest that some form of subterfuge and distraction would be more effective (and I feel like there are some employing this, e.g. first make your substantive edit, just for fun, mark it as minor, and don't include an edit comment, then follow this up very shortly thereafter with some inconsequential edit. Thus the most recent change will be inconsequential, and looking over the recent changes (e.g. using "history"), it will appear there's nothing of concern. Best would be if there wer a way to hack their watchlist, so you can do your editing and they just wouldn't have any notification of the change. Fabrickator (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Really? I can assure you tricks like that would be obvious to people watching the article. Marking a substantial edit as minor in order to hide it is blockworthy. Note also that Vanamonde93 ("Valamont") is not acting as an administrator at Love Jihad. They're involved in editing the article, as a regular editor, so any complaint about them as administrator is irrelevant. See the policy WP:INVOLVED. I, on the other hand, don't edit the article, so I can use my admin tools around it if necessary. I could for instance block somebody for advising another editor to use subterfuge, and also block that other editor if they actually used it. Articles about India/Pakistan with a political slant, such as Love Jihad, are susceptible to many abuses, and admins are likely to sanction users who try to disrupt them. Please take this as a warning. Bishonen | tålk 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

This certainly takes on suspicions of organized attempts to "manage content" towards a certain agenda. When I suggest that someone may have been using a particular technique to achieve subterfuge, you tell me that the technique I mention would be ineffective, and then warn that my advocating the use of subterfuge would be grounds for sanctions. I am not the one here who is out of order, you're out of order. The effort to manage this topic is out of order. The whole of Wikipedia administration is out of order! Fabrickator (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've no idea what any of that has to do with my warning. Don't tell people such as Liberalvedantin that they should use subterfuge and tricks. They may take you up on it. The next time you advocate the use of subterfuge to inexperienced users, I will block you indefinitely. I hope that's quite clear. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC).Reply

I've had Love Jihad on my watchlist for years. If when you say Wikipedia administration is out of order you mean our policies and guidelines, then clearly this is no place for you and you shouldn't give offering advice to editors less experienced than you. If you mean the Admin corps, the same applies as they are appointed by the Wikipedia community. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I missed the point you make about not liking majority rule, by which I assume you mean democracies. You certainly will have a problem here. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have no intention of using subterfuge, no need to worry. I plan on following Wikipedia policies. However, there seems to be more dialog that is needed since discussion of topics related to a page's contents are discouraged for poorly argued reasons. To deny that the perception of Love Jihad also includes the definition of forcible conversion, which has been advanced by both academics and by right-wing groups, leaves such topics incomplete, and therefore one-sided. Liberalvedantin (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)LiberalvedantinReply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Thanks for noticing my mistakes on Credit Score. For an editor of your caliber, I am admittedly perplexed why you don't have a userpage (I could help you create one if you want). I don't want to be pushy, just a thought. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know I accidentally overwrote the endorsement section you just added to the Billy Hewes page (was adding citation for the remainder of the text). Feel free to add it again! PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Techron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazon Web Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The only reason Bliss Electrical School redirects to Montgomery College is because there is a somewhat tangential connection between the two, and there is no separate article on Bliss Electrical School. Inasmuch as you have determined that WP should have more comprehensive content on Bliss (going beyond the pre-existing brief description that Montgomery Junior College took over the building where Bliss Electrical School had been operating, absorbin its curriculum and presumably its student body), you should be creating this as a separate article and removing the existing redirect for Bliss Electrical School. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

While I hear what you're saying, and I do think Bliss deserves it's own page. It's history can't be removed from Montgomery College's history any more than Harvard College's can be removed from Harvard University's. School's grow and change, but the fact of the matter is that Montgomery College's modern-day Electrical Engineering Program started in 1893 with the creation of Bliss Electrical School.Chrisisreed (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antifa (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seth Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@GreenC: Can you point me at a policy page that prohibits the use of url-status=unfit (to indicate that the link only works ... displaying the intended content ... under certain circumstances) and {{cbignore}} to keep archive bots from breaking the working links in a citation? Fabrickator (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template documentation is at Template:Cite web and you can ask the community questions about usage at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Documentation for {{cbignore}} is at that page. The |unfit= is for URLs that are "unfit" for display such as porn sites and hijacked domains. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the original context of this question, but if it is about web sites displaying the intended content only under certain conditions, and if that restriction is not down to geo-blocking but down to a paywall or similar, the appropriate CS1/CS2 parameter appears to be |url-access= with arguments such as limited or subscription. Hope it helps, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

"If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate." Source: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Citation templates and tools. Daask (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Its not about being offended, it's about what our rules say.

The rules wp:talk and wp:not is clear. Article talk pages are not general forums to discuss the topic, they are there only and solely to discuss improvements to the article. You are correct, the place for that is your talk page (maybe, but do not abuse it).Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

WP:COPYLINK is quite clear, we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Archives that are uploading books that are still in copyright, without explicit permission of the copyright owners, are forbidden under Wikipedia's copyright policies regardless of whether or not the source claims they are legitimate or not. Do not re-add links to Archive.org, or any other archive site, that contains copyrighted books. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually, C, the page says if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. So it is fine to link to a site which you do not suspect of copyright violations. And I can't find where in the linked COPYLINK section it says quite clearly we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Perhaps you just expressed yourself imprecisely? Anyway - perhaps a less confrontative message (to Fabrickator) where you say "I suspect the link nnnn leads to a pirate site, so I removed it" instead of slapping them with boilerplate? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A cutie for you

Bot2213 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fab!

Just pointing out something you probably already know: you can make your currently redlinked user page "go blue" by making it redirect to your user talk page. :)

Just click your (red) user page link, add the following and save:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Fabrickator]]

Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice that you are adding many Wikidata links to the body of articles. This is not allowed, as decided at an RfC in 2018: see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, last bullet point. Can you please remove your additions again? Fram (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! CapnZapp (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Note there is no requirement to archive a talk page, user or otherwise. Additionally this isn’t a particularly long talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Ranges" is great. Excessive detail ?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Very good information on "Ranges". "Ranges" is a credit score data source in some finance data websites, and in at least a credit union site. "Ranges" data detail is not miserable. I appreciate your job.YMVD (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have undone my revision without reason. Yes, the live version redirects to another page. It redirects because it is from decades ago and is now dead. That is why I provided a link to the archived page on the Wayback Machine. If you wanted to see which pages are missing in the PDF, you could have opened the PDF yourself and compared it with the archived copy. - wneo (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC) / PS: Page 3 of the PDF ends mid-sentence with "injured" and Page 4 of the PDF (Page 42 of the magazine) begins mid-sentence with "the sea". Now, are you going to verify this yourself by opening the PDF and comparing it to the archived page, or are you going to waste my time again? Sorry if I sound salty but I spent an enormous amount of time finding a valid link for that article. To be undone without a valid reason is extremely discouraging.Reply

@Wesleyneo: I think we are both aligned on trying to find the best link we can for the "Death of an Innocent" excerpt of "Into the Wild", and that in fact, we both invested quite considerable time in doing so. Please consider these points:

1. The current link goes to the first page of "Death of an Innocent", but the links from that page to subsequent pages just redisplay the first page!
2. As you pointed out, the PDF article (actually posted on the Outside website, had skipped over some content.
3. This link displays the entirety of "Death of an Innocent" as a single web page, which is significantly more convenient than having to click through to each page, and especially so if you want to do a text search.
4. The "original link" at https://www.outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html displays content from a different story, IMO, not because it is an old link, but because somebody at Outside erroneously changed what was saved at that location; if we were using an archived version of that link, then the original would properly be marked as "unfit" because it's neither a 404 nor a link to the intended content... but this is moot since we no longer have reason to use that link.
5. I have archived the working archive link I indicated above here, in "archive.today", which offers a couple of advantages, particularly for these "difficult links", especially if they ever become inaccessible on Wayback.

I have not made any changes yet, I await your feedback. Fabrickator (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator: I am glad we are both on the same page about the PDF. I agree that a single-page version of the online edition of the article would be far more convenient to read than a multi-page version spread across ten pages. However, the single-page version (which is actually the page returned when the 'Print' featured is invoked on any page of the multi-page version) misses two graphics. There is an image of the book cover on Page 1 and a crop of the famous self-portrait of of Christopher McCandless seated in front of Bus 142 on Page 2. With its two images and pre-CSS design, the online edition of the article is not as rich as the print edition but it is better than the bare text rendering of the single-page version that is obtained using the online 'Print' feature. I would therefore prefer the multi-part version though it is inconvenient. I clicked through all three captures of the page generated using the 'Print' feature but was unable to find one that included the two images. Perhaps the page was returned with no images originally.

I was not aware of the issue that you mentioned in #1. I followed the link and found it to be true. If one is to use the multi-part version, the challenge then is to find a capture of the first page that will allow a reader to click through all the parts forwards and backwards. Unfortunately, this will require detailed analysis as there are a number of complications. One, not all ten pages have been captured on the same day. The Wayback Machine interface skips to the next available capture when this is the case. Two, there are errors in the links generated. For instance, in this capture, the link to the page for the last part (Part 10) is rendered as http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html0 instead of http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html?page=10 The former simply returns the first page. Two, content is missing from some captures. For example, this capture of Part 1 contains comments. Many others don't. Perhaps comments were turned off at some point.

Finding a sequence of captures that link gracefully forwards and backwards will require a significant amount of analysis. One will have to either do it manually or write a script. I will get to it someday. For now, I have changed the reference to the single-page version that is rendered on using the 'Print' feature. I hope it is satisfactory for now. Following suggestions in the help articles Using WebCite and Using the Wayback Machine, I have set the |url-status=dead flag.

--wneo (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BLPPROD: Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. You did not add an RS before removing the template, so I have re-added it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've noticed you are having the same issues with User:Kbrose as I am. Edit warring, article ownership, refusal to use talk page, etc. I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if you would like to comment. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here are the pertinent edits regarding this content...

• Original North American area codes 16:25, 27 August 2020
• Talk:North American Numbering Plan 18:37, 14 November 2021
• Original North American area codes 19:04, 17 November 2021‎
• Original North American area codes 18:43, 2 January 2022
• Original North American area codes 13:40, 4 January 2022
• Original North American area codes 16:42, 11 January 2022‎
• Original North American area codes 17:04, 14 January 2022‎
• Original North American area codes 17:05, 14 January 2022
• ... (some edits omitted)
• Original North American area codes 18:24, 20 January 2022‎

 

Hello, Fabrickator. You have new messages at Macaddct1984's talk page.
Message added 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have posted a reply to your question on my Talk Page. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please dont tell people to focus after they reverted your edit - where you did more than the edit summary stated. whoever reverted it was most likely under the impression that reverting my edit was the only thing you did, as it was all you stated. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to Help:Interlanguage links § Local links,

... the use of such "local links" for interlanguage linking has been deprecated, with interlanguage link data being centralized on Wikidata.

How am I not to infer from this that the use of the wd parameter is mandated in conjunction with {{ill}}? Fabrickator (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Love Jihad. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 07:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: So to be clear, I express my opinion that when he suggests editors ought to be ignoring an established convention, that it's disruptive, and that in stating this, I am in breach of WP:AGF? Fabrickator (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since they didn't say that, yes. They said they disagreed. That's a big difference. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

But I should have given you a handcrafted message, and for that I apologise. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PowerPark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ride.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re your query of the grammar in this article. The sentence states "high incidences of maternal deaths and perinatal mortality". In other words, it is talking about a high incidence of maternal deaths and a high incidence of perinatal mortality. As maternal deaths and perinatal mortality are not synonymous I would argue that the plural use of incidence is correct here.Roundtheworld (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you seem convinced that the plural usage of "incidences" is somehow uncommon or incorrect enough to be the subject of your widespread tagging. I contend that it is a normal usage and spelling, and in fact you're now "correcting" grammar incorrectly. What consensus have you established for this tagging? Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Elizium23: It would seem rather clear that "incidences" is not a proper plural form of "incident". For further explanation, see Did you know? Fabrickator (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Incidences" is a plural form of "incidence" and not "incident" which is a different word entirely. You should also know that "incidence(s)" has a special meaning in epidemiology and your attempt to obliterate it from articles in this topic area is naive at best and possibly destructive. Please reconsider and take some consultation on the finer points of grammar. Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

On point with that observation, consider [example]: "...(incidence|incidences) of sexual assault and rape) ..."

Now the question is: are there distinct incidence "rates" for 'sexual assault' and for 'rape', or do these get lumped together to form a single incidence? But I suspect the cause of an excess of occurrences of "incident" being pluralized as "incidences" is Grammarly-type software ... somebody writes "incidence" as the plural of "incident", then the software advises them that they need to use the plural form "incidences" (rather than "incidents"). Just my conjecture, of course. Fabrickator (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ie "the proponents appear to be admitting that this is a disingenuous proposal". Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I take the general point, but when it's in a quotation you should check the quotation, not make others do it. It just took a quick click and search to see it was the spelling used in the quote. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Doug Weller: Per Template:sic,"MOS:QUOTE says that 'insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected'." So which article was this? Fabrickator (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Should have done that in my original post, apologies. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children%27s_Health_Defense&diff=prev&oldid=1109296106 this one]. I agree with the idea of what you are trying to do, you just maybe need to do it a bit slower. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I ran into a lot of resistance when I asked about this at the Teahouse, and particularly after I followed the suggestion to raise this at the "Guild of Copy Editors" (though I understand now that the "Typo Team" would probably have been more appropriate). I was really hoping for a template along the lines of {{not a typo}} (the idea being to tag all correct uses of "incidences" and which would allow doing a search to find all instances of "incidences" that had not been so flagged ), but was met with great ridicule for using the term "homonym" to refer to a "homophone". At the rate I'm doing this, it would probably take me a few weeks, but I'm not sure my interests will hold up that long. Fabrickator (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tell me about it. I’ve been trying to deal with instances of the use of Createspace, which I gave up as too tedious. I must get back to it. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

see https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/incidence#:~:text=(%C9%AAns%C9%AAd%C9%99ns%20),the%20occasions%20when%20it%20occurs I disagree with your edit to Blastophaga psenes, I believe that "incidences" is correct in that case going by the dictionary definition of incidence. It is a correct usage in UK English, maybe US English is different? Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how this is covered by WP:VALIDALT, and I do not think it is a good idea to host discussions in userspace that would be explicitly prohibited in the talk namespace. If you're looking for generic discussion of the phenomenon, reddit is where you need to go. Regardless of that, though, you need to abide by the disclosure requirements at the very least: at the moment, you have not done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:ANI#Is User talk:Love Jihad Echo Chamber an appropriate uses of an alt account and its user and talk pages?. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fabrickator. This message is to let you know that the following sanction now applies to you:

By community consensus, you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

This topic ban has been imposed as a result of the community discussion at Special:Permalink/1110835573#Proposal: topic ban Fabrickator, and it has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Please review the banning policy, especially the section on topic bans, to ensure that you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period.

You may appeal this topic ban to the administrators' noticeboard, per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. Please let me know if any of the above is unclear. DanCherek (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I had initially reverted your edits to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines per WP:NOTAFORUM but I see you were responding to someone else's comments, so I restored your comment, archived the thread, and warned the original poster. I try to prevent and dissuade folks, especially CoI editors, from randomly crying for attention on un-related talk pages. — Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laughing Matters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erin Moriarty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

at a new user talk page of the methods by which a person is welcomed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle is one method... JarrahTree 08:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. It was in my watchlist, so I was wondering what this edit was all about? Editors aren't really meant to edit other user's userpages. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't want to continue the conversation on the other user's talk page... thanks for the clarification this should have been to the targeted user's talk page and not their user page. Fabrickator (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator Also, you just only edited my userpage to leave a comment, when you supposed to leave a message on my talk page. Userpages are supposed to present information and details to Wikipedians to know about the user, not a place to start discussions on that. Thanks for the notification! /EnjoyBrowser557 (userpage) (talk) (contributiuons) 05:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@EnjoyBrowser557 I think that was the point that Schminnte was making above, that I had violated protocol by editing someone's user page rather than their user talk page. Please be assured that you have my sincere apologies. Fabrickator (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I edited the article by adding two more references, however you reverted it by undoing it. Would you please explain why did you undo that edit I made? [1] /EnjoyBrowser557 (userpage) (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a Wikipedia editor, I may make edits which in my opinion will improve the content of Wikipedia. If you are a sentient entity (and can convince me of that fact), then you may try to convince me that I am wrong. Fabrickator (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Fabrickator, I've never heard of this, what is a designated user assistant? Valereee (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

and why are you convinced enjoybrowser557 is not a sentient entity? lettherebedarklight晚安 05:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

A certain je ne sais quoi ... actually, somebody had suggested another user was an AI bot a day or two earlier, and I was skeptical of that, but then I encountered this user and observed some similarities. Some things are specific actions they may take, such as posting their reasons for becoming an editor, posting user cards. A vague purpose such as to "add information" is a somewhat bigger clue. Claiming that they're fluent in English after previously admitting they aren't, kind of suggests that they have some sort of cognitive deficiency.

The giveaway, when you think about it, is that their actual editing activity is to "add content" by copying text from one article to another article. I presume that the goal of any AI demonstration on WP is certainly to create article content, and it's easy to understand that a "shortcut" to doing that would be copying existing article content to another article. The awkward responses to follow-ups just makes me that much more confident about my assertion that they are not sentient entities. Fabrickator (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

that's... not really proof of them being an ai. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even in a criminal case, the jury does not apply the standard of "proof beyond any conceivable doubt". Fabrickator (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

sorry, let me phrase it this way: those "clues" are pretty indicative of them being a real person. lettherebedarklight晚安 14:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Aren't we lucky I don't have authority to impose a death sentence? Nevertheless, I'm seeing "patterns" that are consistent with this being an AI agent. It is clearly your prerogative to disagree, but I will still contend that, given the totality of the information we have, it's more likely than not that it's an AI agent. Fabrickator (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

let's go back to the original question. what exactly is a "user assistant"? lettherebedarklight晚安 15:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

"User assistant" is a role that I have assigned for myself with respect to this particular user. The intent was to engage the user in hopes of better understanding the user's/AI agent's behavior.

My sense is that there wasn't any meaningful engagement. I presume that this would be consistent with the developers not having made any meaningful effort to develop how it should respond in a "side conversation", overlooked because their efforts have been on how they can create article edits. Side conversations are of no interest in this role. Fabrickator (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clarence Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

See this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Per the notice on this talk page and the restriction logged at the editing restrictions page you are currently topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. You should probably re-read the topic ban policy, because leaving people messages asking them to make edits in these topics on your behalf [2] [3] is a violation of the topic ban. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This edit – that you (Fabrickator) made just two days after the above message – is also a violation of the topic ban. If you think your topic ban should be lifted, then appeal it at the administrators' noticeboard. Otherwise, please be sure to adhere to it or it will be enforced. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dan-- I appreciate your raising this point, as it's kind of a fine one. I realize that no action is being taken at this time, but I would nevertheless point out that my comment only served to distinguish the different instances of "Section 377" due to the laws' origins under British colonial rule. Anyway, I apologize for the fact that you had to make the effort to alert me to this, and thank you for mentioning the option of appealing the topic ban. Fabrickator (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator, Do you think this discussion was appropriate in which you referred to [4], [5] and [6] given your current topic ban and your recent warnings? Pinging @DanCherek TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TarnishedPath: Point taken. Fabrickator (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your edit here. Would you be interested in doing that at Steele dossier? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Valjean: I have done a second update to add more citation wikilinks to Steele dossier, and while I am appreciative of the fact that somebody noticed, I don't think I'm going to entertain additional requests.  ;-) Fabrickator (talk)

Your efforts are much appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~ Polar Apposite (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I don't think User:Polar Apposite was as clear as they should have been since they unfortunately phrased their requests as questions, nevertheless it's obvious to anyone with reasonable English comprehension that they want you to stop posting on their talk page. Per WP:USERTALKSTOP, you need to stop posting on their talk page right now as you should have when they first made a request as unclear as it was. The only possible exception would be to post required notices etc. If you do not stop, expect to be indefinitely blocked for harassment, consider this your only warning. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nil Einne: Since my last such communication had been some 35 days ago, do you have any reasonable explanation as to why this issue is being raised now?

Here is the ANI complaint showing that he just raised these issues, even though they're all about things that happened over a month ago, and there hadn't been any interaction in the interim until the complaint that was raised at ANI today. Fabrickator (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In fact, Polar himself stated that he had not actually requested me to avoid his talk page: "... I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page.". Fabrickator (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you help me improve some sentences on the caciocavallo page? For example this one: "known locally as caciocavallo ragusano had to drop the denomination "caciocavallo" in order to get DOP status". Perhaps it would be better to use "give up" instead of "to drop". JacktheBrown (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JacktheBrown:... Using "drop" rather than "give up" is the more natural wording to use to describe the fact that it had been present and was subsequently omitted. That said, it sounds as though you're making a claim of similarity of products with distinctive origins under Italian law (which are not necessarily recognized outside of Italy). In any case, if you are making such a claim, you would need a reliable source to support that. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator: I didn't write this sentence, it was already there. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

On my talk page, you said : "Please explain the basis for reverting the interlanguage link that I added on Whole grain. Like all (well, almost all) interlanguage links on English wiki, the linked article will be on a non-English wiki. That's really the whole point, given that the article is not available on enwiki. If you don't have access to a browser that can translate or for some other reason don't want to see the article in a Arabic or French or Japanese, then don't click on those language links. (Oh, BTW, OF COURSE it's a red link ... if it were available in English, we wouldn't be providing an INTER-LANGUAGE LINK."

I recognized that, feeling it is a low-quality link (and somewhat obscure organization) not really needed to support the statement. Zefr (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zefr: The primary criteria for linking a term is that the article should actually be about the term (i.e. not merely happen to have the same name). Wikilinks are "informational", to the extent that a term is somewhat obscure argues for the link, if the term is very well-known (such as "United States"), then it's likely to be considered extraneous. I try not to judge the quality of the article, but almost anything is better than nothing. Fabrickator (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making your case. I'll defer to your judgement. I was not defending the US link which of course isn't needed. Zefr (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Comstock Act of 1873. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Irruptive Creditor: Is this with regard to my comment that there was an "agenda" to get rid of block text? Perhaps you are referring to something else, I don't know. I have a hard time with the concept that observing that somebody prefers to avoid block text constitutes a personal attack. Or is the objection that I elaborated on the value of the text in question? Fabrickator (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You stated: "Is this with regard to my comment that there was an "agenda" to get rid of block text?" Yes, that is the matter. Feel free to discuss with this matter further with other editors and I on the Comstock Act of 1873 Talk Page, I appreciate open dialogue. Until you provide specifics as to who this 'somebody' you speak of is, the particular nature of this alleged agenda (and specific examples you can point to as evidence of it), and more clarification of what exactly is better about the earlier version that was full of errors (of which you've yet to demonstrate they're not errors), I don't see reason to concern over any your claims. I won't discuss anymore on your personal talk page as this is more of an article dispute (better handled on the article talk page) than a personal grievance. Best wishes, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

My comment had merely been an observation about the direction in which content was headed, without any intention of demeaning any particular individual. I merely express the opinion to the effect that certain changes might not be a net positive, with no intention to suggest sanctions against anybody, but nevertheless as something some editors may want to consider. For those who feel my concerns are warrantless, that is their perfect right. For those who want to give my concerns some consideration, that also is their right. Based on this position, I post this on my own talk page, and if you are seeing this and it is bothering anyone, it is only because they have chosen to view my page or to otherwise monitor my activity. And FWIW, I am keeping very cool, I may even need to put on a sweater. Fabrickator (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

In this August 2018 edit, you marked a link to a New York Times article as unfit, which was wrong. The url-status parameter is documented at Template:Cite web#csdoc urlstatus, and unfit is to be used only when the original link is unsuitable for linking from Wikipedia. I find it highly unlikely that nytimes.com was serving such content. Surely the correct parameter would have been dead, live, or deviated. Please read the documentation and follow it. Daask (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And you made the same error again in this May 2022 edit. Daask (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator,

In previous week, I replied a discussion initiated by you. Subsequently my effort to understand you better took me to one of your a year old post 'Can we collaborate or can we not?' at WT:TPG archives. Though it constituted some interesting points, seems could not get enough inputs due to obscurity in the presentation.

Since I think I can deal with obscurity there in, I am interested in presenting my various perspectives in healthy and constructive manner at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, if you do not mind. Requesting and waiting for a 'go ahead' from you.

• Note for other users if they come across this discussion: This discussion intends healthy constructive peer discussion and not be used against discussing users for personalization in any disputes for expression of their views.

Bookku (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bookku: I am subject to a topic ban. Strictly speaking, such a discussion would be possible without implicating the tban, but I have seen how things work on WP. I continue to contribute to WP, but my naïveté is gone. In any given area, content may be subject to rigid controls. Frankly, I should be able to make a good faith request regarding the reliability or neutrality of any given source, but that has itself been deemed to be a violation

FWIW, the topic ban is quite annoying, in spite of the fact that it is only tangentially related to the pertinent issue. But having been exposed to this, the inherent flaws become apparent. Supposedly everything is sourced, and all the sources are reliable, but if a group feels the need to manage the point of view, then that is arranged.

You can claim it's "healthy discussion" but the rules are whatever they want them to be. And if your position constitutes a challenge to theirs, then it's simply not permitted. I really don't intend to completely flat out reject this idea, I'm just expressing my high degree of skepticism. Fabrickator (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry first of all in the month you posted to WT:TPG I didn't find any of your edits concerning, hence it took multiple reads for me to understand above reply. From your reply you seem to be nervous due to T'Ban, though directly not connected, and you wish not to give any chance to any clouds of suspicion to any one- that is fair enough..

My primary perception is you may be aware of at least some important parts of Wikipedia policies but might not gone through guidelines and various essays in detail enough to get get enough grasp of balancing of various aspects of the policies. So in next sub-section I shall try to share my opinion and may be that help you a little bit. Bookku (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

May be some of following you are already aware but going through them may help.

1) See I have and use a special sandbox page for talk page preparation. That helps me in more well prepared comments. I would recommend you the similar practice. That may help in you being less misunderstood.

2) Basically you have option to seek clarification from T'Ban communicating admin whether any aspect or activity will be covered under T'Ban or not and if necessary seeking an amendment.

3) We can discuss very well various possible permutations and combinations for updating policies at relevant talk pages. Still, my perception is, like any human group or community, Wikipedia community too is status quo oriented and very slow for adopting any policy changes.

So even though we discuss expected changes at policy talk pages still we need to follow policies as they are un til any formal change /consensus takes place.

4) There are some structural limitations in Wikipedia format itself that Wikipedians need to live with. Private encyclopedia can have more scope for encyclopedists' individual outlook; where as, Wikipedia is crowd sourced collaborative project, to avoid haywire original research Wikipedia articles need to progress with verifiable WP:RS and introduce some standards.

5) Humans are not machines, hence it's not surprising that Wikiedia too would have some systemic biases and confirmation biases and one ends up seeing good amount of polarization in various topic areas. But actually an encyclopedia needs to be based on rationalism, where as most humans are naturally emotion and Cognitive biases driven. There can be a good amount of scope in improving Cognitive biases and rationalism related articles, and consistently assisting users in improving their rational outlook, IMO that will help this project in long term.

6) Since most users would need consistent assistance in improving their rational outlook; personalizing issues, though much practiced by Wikipedians again being just a human attitude, in long run personalizing issues not much helpful.

Hence rope of WP:AGF has to be very, very, very, very long. If you have doubts over any one's behaviour, or feel emotional maintain a off wiki log on your personal computer but don't write on WP since you need to prioritize trust building here, as much as possible. I shall give more tips on this later but first practice WP:AGF to the best possible extent.

7) Are there any systemic biases while defining and accessing reliable sources and if those are there how to address them may have been your question, or may be about seeking more flexibility about What is WP:RS and what can be discussed at Talk pages, you wished to discuss at WT:TPG, that is a matter of separate discussion which I am postponing as of now. Mean while I would urge and strongly recommend to distance yourself from WP:FORUM look like comments at talk pages. If, needed, Prepare your comments at sand box support them with WP:RS then only take it to talk pages and notice boards so you will not be misunderstood.

My sincere best wishes and happy editing.

Bookku (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fabrickator. Thank you for your work on College of St. Francis Xavier. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

there are quite a few colleges with this name. this will have to be converted to a disambiguation page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MPGuy2824: My intention was to provide something suitable as a wikilink to the New York school ... so what I would have in mind would require a piped link [[College of St. Francis Xavier (New York City)|College of St. Francis Xavier]]. Of course, one could do [[Xavier High School (New York City)|College of St. Francis Xavier]] but I like to think this would be less obscure. Is there a way to rename/move the redirect? Fabrickator (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think renaming is a good idea in this case. You can create new redirects though. I've just created College of St. Francis Xavier (New York City). You can create others that you feel are appropriate. Meanwhile, I'll look into converting "College of St. Francis Xavier" into a disambiguation page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Make sure to use a disambiguation (the words in parentheses) though. One of the following will do: NY, NYC, "New York" or "New York City". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll look into converting "College of St. Francis Xavier" into a disambiguation page Never mind. I found a more appropriate target (which is a disambiguation page). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, I saw your recent edit to Tomarata Lake adding a Cebuano Wikipedia page link to Mangawhai Forest. I'm not convinced it's a good idea to link to bot-created articles - none of the article is factual (outside of the name of the forest and that it's in the Auckland Region), and I sincerely doubt nobody is planning on editing or fact checking this at the Cebuano Wikipedia. --Prosperosity (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Prosperosity: I'm surmising that the fact a bot created this page relates closely to the fact that it's a disambiguation page. If we had a way to determine which of the two is should link to, then we could link to that directly (and presumably, we would update wikidata to properly reflect this).

So my main point is that we have a wikidata page that points to this article ... at least for more experienced/motivated users who are motivated to check wikidata, the situation is confusing because of these two forests referred to by the same name that are in the vicinity of each other. From the wiki perspective, the confusion is less a result of the disambiguation than the ambiguity of the article names(s) we're coming from.

The preferred solution would be to avoid ambiguous names, but that's not really an option, it is inherent in the way they've named these two forested areas (or perhaps in context, it's actually referring to both of them, seems to have something to do with the location of the lake).

If we were to remove the {{interlanguage link}}, that's just leaving it for some other editor to come along and re-create it again, and as for users who might ignore the issue of creating such links but are wikidata-aware, they're going through the cognitive effort of trying to figure this out. It's somewhat less effort when one can just click on the link and then realize that it's giving you two pages to link to, hence it's a disambiguation page. Bottom line is this is less than ideal, but better off than having to grab the link from wikidata before you're able to realize that the interwiki page is actually a disambiguation page. Fabrickator (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean the disambiguation page, I mean the page(s) for the feature (both articles are about the same thing, there's only one forest by this name). Cebuano Wikipedia has bot-generated articles based on usually incorrect geocoordinate data - for these two pages, one amazingly does point to the forest, but the other points to someone's farm.

There's only one forest, but as there are there are two GeoNames items, the bot created two pages (some features like rivers will have 20-50+ articles for the same subject because of this). The bot made millions of pages like this, giving elevation and weather data extrapolated from incorrectly placed GeoNames items.

What I'm saying is that pointing to these Cebuano Wikipedia pages is in most cases worse than useless for anyone wanting to understand more about the subject. Prosperosity (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply