Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:11, 15 July 2022

Feel free to push my button: Help!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Reply tool

I was thinking about the conversation we had recently about the growth team and how that eventually turned into other things, including the WMF in general. How there's community alternatives to the reply tool and that tooks years, that sort of thing. But the reply tool doesn't "ping"/give a notification to whoever you're replying to, as far as I'm aware it's not even an option unless you "ping" someone yourself in the source editor version of it. You'd think that would be something that would've been considered when developing the reply tool... or like in general. Misplaced Pages is the only example that immediately comes to mind of a website where you have to go out of your way (e.g. use a watchlist or check whether your contributions are the current version of a page) to know when someone sends you some kind of message/replys to you. For an online community that has a lot of discussions and ideally a lot of collaboration, that seems like a massive oversight. Interestingly enough, this thread is the first time I've seen the update for the new section appearance. Maybe my optimism isn't entirely unwarranted, but I do think you have a point about how a non-profit that recieves millions could likely ultilize that money more effectively. Clovermoss (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that old school editors like me don't want to receive notifications on every reply, and so wouldn't favour making this a default setting (even if it could be overridden on a per-reply basis). As I understand it, the reply tool does make it (not much, but) a little bit easier to generate a ping notification with its keyboard shortcut (available from the visual editor interface). isaacl (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that because you'd recieve like a million notifications? I prefer pings in general but I know that people don't use them consistently so I watchlist things too. Or I watchlist pages I want to lurk because I find what goes on there interesting but rarely have something useful to say. I also participate in discussions sparingly in general so my perspective on this may be a bit different. But it's easy to miss something among a flood of changes on the watchlist page, especially if you're not checking the diff to see if they're responding to you or someone else. Clovermoss (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, is the shortcut you're referring to the same as how you would ping someone normally? Because I ping people the way I always do w/the reply tool or standard source editor, but if there's an easier way to do it that I'm not aware of that would be useful to know. Clovermoss (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I watchlist pages and then look at diffs in the history to see what new comments have been added. (I use the visual diff beta feature for greater legibility, though I'll switch back and forth with the text diff view based on what is most helpful for the current set of diffs.) This allows me to review all conversation, not just direct replies to me. With the subscription feature, I use that when I'm only interested in a specific section. That does generate a ton of notifications, but the edits can be reviewed in a group, so I just have to ignore the literal number that is displayed. isaacl (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for you, I've temporarily re-enabled the reply tool :) Typing @ in the visual editor interface brings up a pop up box where you can type in any user name which will generate auto-completed choices, but it also provides me with two initial choices. It appears to have searched within the thread for applicable user names and gives me a choice of Clovermoss and Levivich (maybe based on the page title?). So it's a bit easier to generate a ping than in the source editor interface. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. @ makes sense because it's what other websites typically use. But Misplaced Pages has always had such a different interface that it didn't even occur to me that that was an option that might work. Clovermoss (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The last icon in the tool bar (which looks like a person's head with a plus above it) inserts an @ symbol, which I think is how I realized that typing the @ manually also works. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps it listed Levivich because I have a reply in another section to them. So it might be less smart than could be hoped, but still helpful on many (if not most) pages. Since I don't usually have the reply tool enabled, I'll let you experiment. ;-) isaacl (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh. I mean people typically get notifications if someone posts a message to their talk page, so I'd argue that it'd actually be smart if it recognizes a difference like that and not just whoever you've replied to on a page. I still think it'd be a useful default to give people notifications to replies automatically unless they disable it (but the key point here is options). I guess my overall point is that the WMF does do good things, but a lot of progress is very slow for the financial resources they have. But at the same time, I don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes, and I'm sure to some extent people are trying their best, y'know? It's also impossible to please everyone. But if there's a recurring theme going on, people should feel like they're being listened to. I also don't think that the WMF should be immune from criticism just because they do great things. There's a lot of misunderstandings among active editors (including myself!) about how certain things function, but that's an even greater issue outside of the bubble of people who participate here. You also have some issues with WMF staff (obviously not everyone) who don't know much about specific going-ons with the broader community... there's overlap but it's more like a venn diagram than everyone understands what's going on on both sides and can effectively communicate with each other kind of thing. At least that's been my impression of how things tend to work, it's possible I'm wrong.

If you ask a random person in real life if they've ever heard of the Wikimedia Foundation/what it does, a lot of people are going to give you a confused look. Because basically everything they do is equated with Misplaced Pages and everything the volunteers do is equated with donations and it's just one big huge mess of misconceptions. Clovermoss (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As I provided as feedback before somewhere, I think I should be able to specify that I want to be notified about replies to my comment (which is a typical approach for other sites with comments), rather than have the decision made by the person responding. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to advocate. It's weird that there isn't a way to choose to be notified if someone literally clicks "reply" to you. It just seems like a massive oversight to me. I also agree with Levivich that some good changes seem to be happening, hopefully those continue. Clovermoss (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe all the necessary backend infrastructure is already implemented to be notified for any replies and descendent replies, as we've been told that's how subscribing to a section works (you get subscribed to the first comment in the section). There just need to be a user interface created for the feature. However more work would have to be done to be notified only for direct replies. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The new talk page beta thing they have somewhere (I forget) seemed like a step in that right direction (towards a "normal" format). The new CEO has said she wants to make the product tech stuff a priority so I'm hopeful that means a bigger share of budget going to product development (and hopefully that leads to a better product). (Yes I know the last two aren't causally connected.) Levivich 05:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The development team has to want to improve; assuming this, then more spending usually helps. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"Push the button"

I guess folks just have to imagine which kind of editor you are, who has all those Wikibabes queuing up for a Talk page ride? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that was Levivich's intent, Martinevans123. Clovermoss (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've got an entirely different button for that: Take Levivich out to dinner Levivich 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I had you down as the nerdy one with the glasses. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I never went back to showbiz after they rejected my idea for a Nerdy Spice. Levivich 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So all those rumours about you being "off his tits on smack with Madonna" may not be true after all? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See, this is how rumors get started, that was all just a big misunderstanding: Madonna and I were on her smack, working on the Tits group. Levivich 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry about that. I have struck that all now as I understand that, just like Bill Clinton, you never inhaled. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Bible

Hello. As the GA reviewer for the article, I've been watching you add your concerns at Talk:Bible. I think the most significant objection—about the neutrality of the "Influence" section—has now been reasonably well addressed. Some of your other points, such as the lack of an explicit statement that the authorship of most of the text is anonymous, strike me as valid but not necessarily important enough that it wouldn't meet the GA criteria. I'm inclined to pass the article as a GA, which would still leave plenty of room for improvement based on your critiques. But with a topic this sprawling, I feel like maybe I should be running the GAN more like an admin closing an RfC, having to weigh the input of the involved editors, rather than as a solo reviewer. Do you still think there are strong grounds for denying it GA status? A. Parrot (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I really don't care what you do with the GA but no, I don't think it meets the source verification requirement (did you notice how many changes were just made to the article because of failed verification?) I've only checked the first two sections and found the problems I've found. Considering this is the nom's fourth or fifth FA/GA attempt that's had this problem, I'd think we'd want to be more careful, a bit more strict about not failing verification. I'm also really surprise about your read of NPOV. The heavy focus on the positive aspects of the Bible, the minimization of intentional, ideological changes... have you read what this article was like before the nom rewrite it? I was surprised it was put up for GA at all, when there were outstanding content disputes, without any heads up on the talk page or request for peer review first. Anyway this is Fourth of July weekend. I haven't even read the latest revisions. I think you should allow more than a couple days over a holiday weekend, particularly for someone other than the nom to respond to my posts. You might also want to get an opinion from one of the GA coords. Like I said, it's your review, I really don't care if it's a GA or not. But if you want my opinion on it, every single source needs to be checked. You spot checked some and found problems. On Friday, I spent like half an hour checking a few parts and found 3 FVs and an SPS. Even if those are now fixed, I don't have any confidence in the text-source integrity of the rest. In my opinion, it's the nom who needs to go through and check every source and then state that they're confident that there are no SPSes or FVs, and then others should spot check (I'd be happy to do so). Obviously this will take forever; but it's what needs to be done. Whether that's done before or after it gets a green check mark doesn't matter at all to me (or the reader, or anyone else except the nom). Levivich 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Valid points. It's frustrating, because Jenhawk is very well-meaning and has a lot of familiarity with the sources, but her work always seems to have fatal flaws. Considering how long the review has already dragged on, it really doesn't make sense to wait for the citations to be re-checked; I'll have to close it now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I share your frustration, and I'm sorry for putting you in this crappy position, which you've handled with remarkable poise. But at least it's only a matter of time until it's up for GA again, and next time should be a breeze given all the work that's being put. Thanks, Levivich 03:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My preferred formulation is

"An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation"; somehow it flows better. I didn't originate it (I'm almost certain) but I don't know where I picked it up, and to my surprise it doesn't seem to exist anywhere at all in the wild. EEng 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sir, as your biographer, it is my solemn duty to misquote you. I think you may have actually coined the saying, because I hadn't heard it before and I know everything. Levivich 03:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't be mad at me

I had to fix that grammar error. Atsme 💬 📧 12:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What are friends for, right? Levivich 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please

For all our sanity at AFD, actually send it! The 6 month ban wasn't enough. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Reading this provided further motivation; it's sent. Levivich 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Model airplanes... again

I'm sorry I undid this the first time. I kind of panicked because I started worrying that the copyright status might not be clear but the people at Commons seems to think that's it's probably fine? Anyways, if you want to see it (again?), click this link . I'm still very curious about what exactly happened for banning model airplane flying to be a thing at a park. Did whoever was writing the by-law just really have something against model airplanes? Wanted to see what they could get away with? Or was there some infamous incident that led to the prohibition? Clovermoss (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I expanded Paul K. Guillow, Inc. after my granddaughter and her friends were playing with model airplanes at a local park that did not have a sign like that. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised the sign prohibits "Model Airplane Flying". I mean, how many pilots are models, anyway? Sure, pilots look dashing in their pilot suits, but are there really so many models flying airplanes in that park that it needed to be curtailed? Or, maybe it's prohibited because the park is in restricted airspace, near an airport or something. Levivich 21:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe they mean model as in model citizen -- exemplary airplane flying? EEng 22:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You can fly your model airplane, but no showing off! Levivich 02:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If the pilots have their planes under control and everyone in the park is paying attention to them, then the risk should be minimal, but in many general-use parks, I think those aren't necessarily safe assumptions. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

And even if everyone is paying attention there are always risks having a flying gas tank surrounded by electricity with at least one spinning blade, built by and piloted an amateur, zipping around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My granddaughter's model planes were made out of balsa wood and powered by rubber bands. But Facebook keeps recommending videos to me showing radio controlled model fighter jets about five feet long. Less aggressive model planes with a wingspan of well over six feet are readily available online. I would not want one of those crash landing in the midst of my picnic. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we talk about the fine, too? $5000 as the maximum seems a bit much. Also... there's only a children's playground, running track, and small baseball field at this park. Who would even try golfing or practicing archery? But it's the model airplane flying that's the most bizzare prohibition, imo. Clovermoss (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You know how I know it's Canada? Because "weapons or fighting" is below "golfing or archery". Levivich 21:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it is a few blocks away from the U.S.–Canada border (specifically Niagara Falls). You have to let the American tourists know somewhere. Just kidding. Although I like to think I'm pretty nice and non-aggressive :) Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If Canadians think American tourists are going to read that far down the sign, they're giving us way too much credit ;-) It's got to be at the top, in all-caps bold: AMERICANS: please leave your guns at home, eh? Levivich 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A small park is all the more dangerous for some of these activities, and a full running track and baseball park sounds like ample space for people to try archery, golf, and flying devices. A large maximum fine value without a specified minimum is a good way to deter unsafe actions while allowing for leniency. Personally, I don't think a prohibition on model airplane flying is all that odd (though I appreciate it may be disappointing for hobbyists). Recall that all kinds of remotely piloted aircraft systems would be included, and they can be quite dangerous flying around with people not paying attention, particularly children. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

On a side note, the sign seems to be lowballing the maximum fine; according to the bylaw on the city's web site, the maximum fine is $10,000. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I was envisioning very flimsy model airplane flying, like kids. I didn't realize there were hobby enthiuasts for it, although that's probably something that exists for everything in some capacity. As for golfing and archery, it's hard to explain without seeing it in-person but there's fences dividing everything so that would be really impratical even if you wanted to. The baseball field is tiny by most standards, the cemetery across the street is several times larger and has a lot more open space. As for the fines, that sign's been there forever so my guess is that they haven't updated it with inflation. I distinctly remember that sign being there when I was 8, so it's been there since at least 2010/2011. Clovermoss (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, we're not talking about building a commercial practice space: the city just wants to stop people from bringing over their clubs/bow and arrows and setting up arbitrary targets to hit. Regarding flying devices, today, think drones. (Then think of equivalently sized and weighted planes, which can be even harder to control.) isaacl (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You know the sign is old because it doesn't say "no drones". Levivich 02:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• You think that's overprescription? Try this...

(I actually just went to look, and "CFR 1910.42" does not, in fact, appear to exist; see . I'm beginning to think this might be a Harvard Lampoon prank.) EEng 22:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Might be; aside from "42", the icons are the GHS "dead fish and tree", which indicates acute or chronic aquatic toxicity, and an NFPA 704 diamond indicating a moderately flammable, moderately toxic, moderately unstable substance. Levivich 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

They just got the number wrong. It's actually under CFR 1910.37: Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"No materials or equipment may be placed, either permanently or temporarily, within the exit route." Levivich 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Safeguards designed to protect employees during an emergency (e.g., sprinkler systems...) must be in proper working order at all times." It makes perfect sense. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd have expected it to come under Evacuation Procedures. EEng 02:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:EARWORM

wow. How has no one blue linked that with @El C's usual lyric fun? Actually, even more fun to report you for a "violation" of a red link For this edit you're blocked for negative 43 seconds for getting that song in my head ;-) Star Mississippi 16:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: One of the benefits of WP:IDHT tendencies is immunity to WP:EARWORM. Anyway, I guess I should make an unblock request... {{unblock |reason=Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong. While you see it your way, there's a chance the wiki might fall apart before too long.}} Levivich 17:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Unblocked, with a promise that you absolutely will do it again Star Mississippi 17:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

1RR

Your recent editing history at Rania Khalek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The page is subject to 1RR restriction. Which you should be well aware of since you just filed an AE report in that regard. Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm claiming BLP exemption per WP:3RRNO. This is disputed, controversial content that states a BLP supports two dictators/war criminals (Assad and Putin), and is under active discussion on the talk page, where a supermajority of editors so far oppose inclusion. And you're the person I reported to AE, for trying to edit war this content in. Levivich 18:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours

I've blocked you for edit warring on Rania Khalek. It's a 1RR page, I count 3 reverts in 24 hours. With 3 reverts, it doesn't even matter that it's a 1RR page, or WP:ARBPIA page, that is edit warring. I'm doing this as a standard admin action, not a AE action, to reduce my paperwork, and because you should know better, had the chance to revert yourself after the last revert and didn't. This is after you filed the AE report on another editor. In short, you aren't using good judgement here. Of course, you can read WP:GAB to figure out how to appeal this block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, they make it clear they were claiming the BLP exemption in their edit summary and in the above section. The material is contentious, and currently under discussion, which is a clear pass for WP:3RRNO. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A claim that is is BLP exempt doesn't make it so. The material may be contentious but it was well sourced, so it doesn't seem in bad faith or an obvious BLP violation. You can't just say "I'm doing this under 3RRNO" and get a pass. They can always appeal the block and another admin can view it, and the reviewing admin is free to act without my permission. As it isn't an "obvious BLP violation" (which is what 3RRNO is about), I see it as warring. I could have issued and logged under WP:ARBPIA and extended it to a longer block, but I'm trying to use the least amount of sanction to get the job done. Again, any admin is free to review and act, assuming they appeal it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Dennis, I am one of at least five editors who thought the material was poorly sourced and said so on the talk page. WP:3RRNO says libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. This is poorly sourced (as well as potentially libelous). What's the point of 3RRNO if you can get blocked by any administrator who disagrees? Had you considered just telling me that you didn't think the exemption applied, before blocking? Disappointing that you blocked me for removing poorly-sourced contentious, disputed BLP content, but you're doing nothing about the editor who repeatedly reinstated the content. Levivich 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

On the plus side, you can try out WP:XRV. Silver linings, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not until tomorrow though 😂 Levivich 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I took care of it. The irony of the test case being you getting blocked gives me a chuckle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; the irony is too good to pass up. Plus, this'll give the community a chance to finally come to a compromise: restore inbound links to XRV, but leave Levivich blocked. Levivich 23:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Additionally WP:BLPRESTORE, which is policy, says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. It seems that's pretty clear, must be obtained first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention at least two of the sources being used are more or less op-eds. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There we’re first 7 sources for the info there. Then 2 more were added. Then 3 more. Adding more sources is “significant changes” here, though frankly when you’re up to 12 sources and people are still trying to pretend it’s controversial or “unsourced” the situation has become pretty ridiculous and someone’s obviously trying to WP:GAME BLP at that point. Volunteer Marek 00:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not about the number of sources. I made the mistake of thinking that way years ago. It's about that when editors are working on figuring out how to include this controversial BLP content, the content stays out, and we only add it in once there's consensus about what exactly add in, what prose and what sources. You don't just repeatedly reinstate your preferred version over and over against the objections of multiple editors. This is Misplaced Pages 101. Levivich 00:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You made a mistake years ago? How many years ago are we talking about here Levivich? When? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Unless I'm missing something, you're linking to Levivich's contributions from 2018, when they started editing? It's 2022. That's years ago. Clovermoss (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss 3 years and 7 months. Unless I’m missing something this is not that long. Last year? Two years ago, or three years ago? When? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I'm assuming that they meant two or three years ago by that comment, since they claimed that this is "Misplaced Pages 101". I also started editing in 2018, sometimes I say years ago. 3+ years can be a long time, it depends on your perspective. Personally I think that comment's a bit dismissive of Volunteer Marek because they've been here even longer, but I think Levivich is frustrated and thinks that they were acting under policy. I don't understand the underlying situation much so I thought I'd bring this up, at least. I think you may be reading a bit too much into Levivich's comment here? Clovermoss (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss I understand. There are plenty of underlying past, not easy to comprehend at first glance. Okay, let three years be years ago. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)