User talk:Dennis Brown
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | I am busy due to real world activities. I may be absent for days at a time, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Ford–GM 10-speed automatic transmission Citation[edit]
Hello, I saw you reverted my source edit for #12 on the Ford-GM 10-speed page and wanted ask would the first edit of the web.archive of the png be the same as the link to the Camaro6 forum? The table from the web.archive links to that site and the phot is on the post. I only ask as I recently found out someone linked that table and I made it on the source. I am new so would love to learn, cheers! Bumbleboy92 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bumbleboy92: The problem is the website, Camaro6, which is a blog. If you check out WP:RS (our policy on what is a "reliable source", you find we really try to avoid blogs and forums except in exceptional circumstances. Mags like Hot Rod, Car and Driver, etc are perfectly fine. The difference is that the mags have an editorial staff and vet their articles more carefully. Blogs tend to be "one man shows" and so the reliability of the information is dubious, and often, incorrect. This is because there is no fact checking. Not a big deal, this is how you learn, so take no offense to the revert. The only time we are lenient about blogs and forums is if it is a from the company itself and the account is verified to be them, and even then, we would qualify the statement in the text of the article. ie: "CEO Bob Smith said on Twitter that they expect to increase horsepower by 10hp next year", instead of just saying "they are increasing horsepower next year". One of the principle ideas behind Wikipedia is that it is better to have LESS information that is WP:Verifiable than to have more that is not sources or poorly sourced. So the end result is that articles are often missing some information, but you can rely on the information that is there, being factual. So reverts happen. The best thing to do when you are reverted... is exactly what you did, start a discussion if you have questions. Try to not unrevert a revert, unless you know the revert was a mistake. Revering multiple times typically gets you blocked for edit warring here. So you are on the right path to learning and helping by coming here and just asking, although using the talk page of the article is where you would normally bring up the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
Guideline and policy news
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
Technical news
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]
- 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)
BLP violations on Martin Nowak's page[edit]
Hello I saw that you protected the article about Martin Nowak. I have a couple of concerns that I addressed in depth on the Administrator’s userboard, concerning BLP policy violations. The page, as it now appears, contains some factually inaccurate information and a biased POV. I would like to request that the inaccurrate information is corrected, and the discussion revised in order to also reflect sources that are favourable to Nowak. I am surprised and concerned that the page has been protected in this state, considering how clear Wiki’s policies are on libellous or biased information about living persons.
In summary, these are the sentences that are straight up false, and contradicted by the sources cited in their support:
1) "...as a punishment for having provided an office, keycard, and passcode, and for allowing Epstein free and unlimited access to the university's campus ten years after his conviction for sex crimes" The Harvard report only mentions a keycard. Nowak was not blamed for "providing an office" as this was known and approved by the university. No passcode is ever discussed. PED was not on university campus. Thus Epstein never had "free and unlimited access to the university campus".
2) "The PED was funded with a total nine million dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, [15]" - this sentence is false, as the Harvard report says the university received 6.5 million in 2003 for the support of PED".
3) "In 2020, the university placed Nowak on paid academic leave for violation of campus policies including professional conduct and campus access" - this sentence is misleading - the three specific charges against Nowak are discussed in the following source: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/. This article is not cited anywhere in the page, and not discussed at all, although it provides important information favorable Nowak. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- This really needs to reported at WP:BLPN. If a BLP violation isn't obvious on the surface (ie: calling someone a murderer, saying they are dead/alive when it is obvious they aren't, etc) and the "violation" requires analysis or interpretation of the sources, then the decision should be made by the community rather than a single admin. This is particularly true if there are multiple sources saying different things, which may or may not be the case. For me to go in an enforce a particular version of the article in this circumstance is really more than the community wants admins to do as a unilateral action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you that it should not be your role as an admin to enforce unilaterally one version of the article. Although, you de facto did just this by freezing editing on the article.
- There is already an ongoing dispute on the BLPN. One of the editors refuses to add two sources that are favourable to Nowak, so it seems like we are reaching an impasse.
- I will be honest here – I am not an editor of Wiki, don’t even have an account (although might create one). A few weeks ago I went down this rabbit hole after Nowak released his new book. It is frustrating to see someone abusing his status as an editor, and moreover that I cannot do much, since I am not an established user.
- I do hope that more people will be attracted to the topic and we can start a discussion with more voices. 88.156.136.159 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I did was simply protect the article so it couldn't be edited by unregistered editors with less than a week of experience, because all the problems were coming from those same editors. There are different levels we can protect the article at, this was the softest type of protection I could use. This doesn't mean I have a preferred version of the article, or agree or disagree with the edits. It only means that I recognize that most of the abuse, the problems, the warring, whatever, are coming from that particular subset of editors. This is a very common mechanism to protect the integrity of articles. IP address are not "people", they rotate, they change, many people can be using the same IP address at the same time with NAT. This is why they are often a source of abuse, and why we protect sometimes. Anyone who registers and has a dozen or so edits and has been here a week won't be affected by the protection, only unregistered IP editors and "drive by" editors who joined only to make an edit to that article. If it is at BLPN, then that is where it needs to be. The people that make decisions about what is and isn't ok to add to articles are NOT admins, they are all the regular editors. Admins simply are trusted with special tools that allow us to do certain functions under certain cirumstances. We don't "decide" content any more than anyone else. Because I have the tools, I have to be careful to NOT inject my opinions in articles where I am acting as an admin. I can't do both to an article: I can either "vote" on what is the right version, or I can act on behalf of the community using the special tools in an objective manner. Policy dictates this. Admin aren't "super editors", we are janitors, basically. Trusted to use the tools under strict guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that you have a point here and that's why I created an account to be easily identifiable (especially that I travel quite often and connect from different locations).
- On the other hand, it is strange to automatically consider "old users" as more trustworthy even if they clearly show personal emotional involvement and lack of objectiveness.
- You say you blocked the page to wait for the community response and you do not take sides. Nevertheless you decided to block it WITH the text violating the BLP rules in the very moment when the release of the new Nowak's book spurred increased interest in his biography. It is just the way I came across this text while checking if this new piece of work has already been included in the wikipedia profile. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- What I did was simply protect the article so it couldn't be edited by unregistered editors with less than a week of experience, because all the problems were coming from those same editors. There are different levels we can protect the article at, this was the softest type of protection I could use. This doesn't mean I have a preferred version of the article, or agree or disagree with the edits. It only means that I recognize that most of the abuse, the problems, the warring, whatever, are coming from that particular subset of editors. This is a very common mechanism to protect the integrity of articles. IP address are not "people", they rotate, they change, many people can be using the same IP address at the same time with NAT. This is why they are often a source of abuse, and why we protect sometimes. Anyone who registers and has a dozen or so edits and has been here a week won't be affected by the protection, only unregistered IP editors and "drive by" editors who joined only to make an edit to that article. If it is at BLPN, then that is where it needs to be. The people that make decisions about what is and isn't ok to add to articles are NOT admins, they are all the regular editors. Admins simply are trusted with special tools that allow us to do certain functions under certain cirumstances. We don't "decide" content any more than anyone else. Because I have the tools, I have to be careful to NOT inject my opinions in articles where I am acting as an admin. I can't do both to an article: I can either "vote" on what is the right version, or I can act on behalf of the community using the special tools in an objective manner. Policy dictates this. Admin aren't "super editors", we are janitors, basically. Trusted to use the tools under strict guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn't block the page, I protected it. Unless reverting vandalism or an obvious BLP violation, admin can't revert back to a preferred version. I just explained this above. Established editors are more trustworthy. 80% of all vandalism comes from IPs, for instance. I will suggest you tread carefully once you can edit the article, and use the article talk page now instead of just reverting later. WP:Edit warring always results in a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)