User talk:Fish and karate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Neil)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I am pretty much away until further notice. Messages may or may not be read. If your issue feels urgent to you, go and contact another administrator, if there are any left at the time you read this. Fish+Karate 09:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Bos mutus.JPG Typo Barnstar
Oh please don't take my yak page access away! Sorry, just couldn't resist; that typo is hysterical! I know you corrected it seconds later. Sometimes our fingers do the most hysterical things :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Never edit on a phone without checking you haven’t made an autocorrect rotor. Fish+Karate 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing urgent, just a note here rather than on the Floc admin page where it might seem like attention-getting[edit]

Just a comment, because I otherwise often find myself agreeing with you. Attention-seeking is a dangerous label, surely? It's semantic valency ranges from teachers who must attract the attention of distracted students (the political reflex is making a stand when no one else will: like a (Jewish: it matters in this context) mentor of mine who stopped a tradition of humiliating new boys in a Protestant prestigious college back in the 30s by stepping in to protest the custom one day. His authority came from his known gentleness of character, his excellence at sports and intellectual brilliance. I'm sure some of the bullies would have quipped: 'Ah fuck him, always grandstanding on 'ethics' to get attention), down to those who will do anything to catch the public eye.Those who are in the limelight and exercise executive powers invisible to most of us, often deride critics as trying to grab people's attention, something they themselves base their careers on. When, from within the Republican party ranks, Justin Amash took a stand against Trump, it was summarily dismissed as attention-seeking. In sum, almost every act act lends itself to interpretation as drawing attention, from a baby crying, a newspaper boy's street shouting, a farmer's alerting neighbours to an incipient bushfire, to a victim of robbery yelling 'thief', whatever the distinct and singular impulses that lead to it (unknown to us generally), can be put down as 'attention-seeking'. So I don't think one should attribute that motive to anyone unless there is a sustained prior record of exhibitionism. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani, I will have to re-read this a couple of times, give me a few minutes. Fish+Karate 12:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, unlike in private work, I don't review and make stylistic revisions to what I write off the top of my head, and readers have good reason to complain. Sorry. Just, as usual, too pressed for time to be concise. No need to reply. We're all busy, or enjoying well-deserved holidays. CheersNishidani (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Telugu cinema[edit]

Hi this mobile IP address 182.18.177.106 and 115.97.181.112 is vandalizing the page by adding "Telugu cinema is ranked second based on box office ranking" there is no such thing as ranking in Indian cinema article. It is sheer pluff and fan pov. The editor is using abusive language in mobile edit summaries. Please do the needful temporary semi protection and pls block the IP.Rvls (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rvls: the IP address has been blocked and there has been no vandalism in 6 hours. If it resumes please let me know or go back to RFPP. Thanks, Fish+Karate 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Declined PP request[edit]

In regard to the note you left me about improper rollback use, just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I noticed in my RPP request (which I made using Twinkle), I selected the wrong item from the dropdown. Instead of vandalism, I intended to choose "disruptive editing". It may have seemed like a content dispute on the surface, but a closer look reveals a bit more.

All three edits are from the same IP range with the last octet changing, and it's quite clear they are ignoring/deleting the hidden text in the process (the act of deleting and even rephrasing in one case is a clear indication they see it). The first two diffs were immediately reverted by another editor, and I walked in on the third. Second, I realize my rollback's edit summary could have been better. In hindsight, labeling my revert as "rvv" was incorrect. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "rv disruptive edit" or even better:

"This field is for the model, not the type. See Template:Infobox roller coaster and this article's talk page for more info"

...and followed that up with posting an explanation on the talk page. I'm usually pretty good about that, especially in situations that look like possible misunderstandings by the offending IP (this one didn't at first, but I see it now). Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: No problem. Bear in mind the IP editor in question is trying to help improve the article. I get that they may not be doing it in the right way, and the edit they want to make may not actually improve the article, but they're not doing this to spite you, and just undoing their edits without a reasonable explanation isn't going to help them learn how to edit better. Save the "rvv" stuff for actual vandal edits, not good faith editing that just happens to be of low quality. Fish+Karate 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the advice, and yes, this was an anomaly and not a common occurrence. I usually follow the necessary protocols to try to reach out and explain before assuming the disruptive behavior is intentional. I think when you grow accustomed to seeing how it pans out 9 out of 10 times (i.e. the tendency for IPs to ignore you right up until they're blocked), a lax in good judgement is bound to occur from time to time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Template: Infoshops[edit]

Thanks for your closing summary about deleting the Infoshops template. To be honest, I was expecting this to be closed as no consensus, and I'm a bit confused by your reasoning about there being a majority since there were three Keeps, three Deletes and a Weak Delete which said "but I don't see anything problematic with keeping them either." I said keep and I didn't see very much to reply to in terms of an argument for deletion, just various statements which fail WP:NOTDUPE. Further, I haven't seen any suggestions on how to improve the template, which is a wasted opportunity.

I'd also like more clarity here if possible on why any template needs to pass all five criteria, since the policy states: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines." Indeed, the reason people were mentioning other templates is because very few templates do satisfy all five criteria and I'm not sure how else that could be demonstrated.

Regarding 3 (The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent) - well I think they do and the relevant literature eg Atton, Dodge, Lacey and Munson on Infoshop does link these projects together. Further, there are networks in existence for example the UK social centre network, there's reliable sources for that at Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom.

Regarding 5, (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the 'See also' sections of the articles) well no you probably wouldn't link all the projects in a See also section, there's too many, but you would link the ones in the same country then the navbox provides a useful navigation to other projects. I don't know how many navboxes this guideline is actually true of? It's certainly not true of the other template on the mother page ... which somehow manages to link Radical cheerleading and Somatherapy.

I also see some procedural irregularities here but that can be mentioned at review if necessary. Thanks for any answer, I see a note at the top of this page saying you aren't around much so I'll move forward if I don't hear back from you in a week or so. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hi, thanks for your in-depth comments, I will respond on Monday or Tuesday if that’s ok. I’m a bit hectic this weekend. Fish+Karate 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)