User talk:ActivelyDisinterested/Archive 5

Cite Q and sfn
Hi, I noticed that in your edit summary for Enos (Book of Mormon prophet) you mentioned that Cite Q doesn't support sfn. I asked about it three months ago on the Cite Q talk page and Trappist the monk said it was supported. I and my team of student editors have been using Cite Q with sfn references without issues that I've seen. We have been using Cite Q in creative ways though--was that particular instance creating an error of some kind? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you're going to be using such short form references I suggest turning in the associated error messages. Details of how to do so can be found here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. There are two types of errors, no-target errors, and multi-target errors. The former happens when there is no cite to link with, and the latter when there is more than one possible cite to link with (for instance two works with the same author and publication year). Using cite Q with short form refs such as sfn or harv causes false positive no-target errors. This is due to cite Q being implemented without taking short form references into account. The cite is there but system can't see it. The solution is to add last and date to the cite, which clears the error and doesn't effect the cite in anyway. The actual fields might be author or last, and date or year depending on how the wikidata is setup -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also you shouldn't replace normal cites with cite Q en masse. It's fine if you're completely rewriting the article or in an article you have started, but otherwise you should follow the style already in the article. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not replacing citations en masse. I looked at the other pages where we used sfn with cite Q, and I don't think they usually create no-target errors--we usually use sfnref with cite q to ensure this doesn't happen, but my student forgot to include sfnref on the Enos page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Using the ref field will also surprise the false positives. There's a technical reason for why this happens that I won't go into, hopefully at some point it will go away. I've been working through the backlog of such errors for the lastest 18 months or so, and once it's cleared hipe to push for a patch so the false positives no longer happen. Sorry my comment on cite Q came off more accusatory then I meant it. It was meant as a word of caution, as they don't have full community support, rather than to say you were doing anything wrong. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page comment
I was a bit confused by your comment on my talk page? Number  5  7  17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The video creator has an axe to grind, and it's not a new one. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

FMG
What is your source for dismissing FMG as a reliable source for medieval genealogy? It does have a number of academics and receives funding from the UK Government. I am aware of the discussions on Wikitree, which could be summed up by saying no source on its own is infallible and all should be read critically and compared. You may be aware that someone else just removed Wikitree as unreliable, which seems a bit unfair since its medieval project is not only tightly controlled but also pretty critical of sources. Which of course leaves us with the burning question of what exactly does Wikipedia accept as "reliable"? Imperfect sources are sometimes better than none. Maybe that is a question for further discussion by the project. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  02:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry not my opinion, the reliability of Medlands has been discussed extensively over years. It is not published by FMG who are a reliable source, they just host it. It's indiscriminate use of primary sources has been criticised both here and off wiki. I've not heard of wikitree before you mentioned it, but it's appears to fall under WP:User generated content and so wouldn't be reliable. WP:Sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, who finds them has absolutely no impact on whether they should be considered reliable or not. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, there is some confusion about Wikitree. There is a world of difference between people making up their own family tree, and people researching historical sources, which is the case with Wikitree's Medieval Project. I will look further for discussions on Medlands here - I had expected it might be on WikiProject Middle Ages, where I raised the issue of having a reliable database of sources for users. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Medlands has been heavily discussed on WP:RSN you can search the archives there. There was also a lot of discussion on the talk page of a template that used to exist for it, however that has been deleted as part of the clean up processes of removing the source. I based my comments on wikitree on the fact that anyone can create an account and then edit the site, such site will very nearly never be considered a reliable source. If the contributors list is kept to only experts who have previously been published by other independent reliable sources it could be considered reliable under WP:Self-published sources, but you would need to show that that is the case. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

) Erzan (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's just ridiculous, the matter has only been under discussion for less than half a day. Let some time pass so that any other interested editors can have their say. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The matter has been under discussion since October 2023. This is a continuation of the same disagreement. If you no longer wish to engage, I will follow what has been discussed on between another editor on RfC, who has dropped their objection, and edit accordingly. Erzan (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy in real life. As I mentioned elsewhere you made two comments last October and then stopped replying after being asked a question. To say it has been under discussion since October just isn't true. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Question
Dear heart, I need to add a reference that is by someone already in the sources list, published in the same year, but a different volume. Can you remind me how to do that? I number something somehow? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You just need to add a letter to the year, so 2019a and 2019b for instance. And then just make sure to add the appropriate letter to the refs so they match. You can use volume for the volume information. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you thank you!! And thank you for my cookies! They were delicious of course! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Applause!
You are amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

HELP Please!
I know you're busy, but I have made some kind of error citing an encyclopedia on History of Christianity and I cannot figure out why. It's reference #207. Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You had me stumped for a second, as it's ref #183 now. But it's fixed, unless you use last and year you just have to setup the ref field. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 183?! What the heck? I'm sorry, I must have edited out something after contacting you. My God - what would I do without you?! From an absolutely selfish motive I exclaim that you must never quit Wikipedia!!!
 * You know, you have taught me enough that I guessed it had something to do with the ref= but I had no idea about the harvid thing. What exactly is that btw?
 * You are the best. Thank you. I am still drowning in Christian History, but starting to tread water a little. Thank you for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All that harvid does is correctly format the link. The correct link would be formatted as CITEREFEasternChristianity2024, but that a pain to type so harvid just makes it easier as you just copy in the format you used in the ref "|Eastern Christianity|2024".
 * Harvid is really a redirect to sfnref, but I always gind harvid easier to remember. Happy to hear your making progress, I'm always here if it can help. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 09:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Pakistan Military Monitor
I trust everything's smooth sailing on your end. While the discussion has subsided and I don't intend to reignite it, but I'd like to remind you of this so share your thoughts about TPMM when you have the time. I love to hear your perspective on this source. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry I was hoping to have more time for Wikipedia editing, but life is keeping me busy. Please accept my apologies and continue the discussion without me. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Template fix
Thank you very much for your fix at ANI. Goddam bots! Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

Help with Antioch
Hi there, would you be willing to look at the Antioch International Movement of Churches article and see how my collaborator there is intepreting your remarks at RSN? That page could really use the attention of an experienced editor such as yourself. I'm a bit over my head in dealing with dispute resolution there, and it's only me and one other editor. No worries if you can't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I see Starship.paint has already helped out, they are much better qualified than I for such things. I've made a few edits and replied at the article's talk page. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also added the page toy watch list for the next week. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how qualified I am. I am also busy, so I'd leave this link here Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested for your help.  starship .paint  (RUN) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Scouting issues at ANI
Hi, Just a couple of quick questions now that the Graywalls etc discussion seems to have died down...

I was surprised to see that the boomerang re: unsubstantiated personal attacks didn't gain more support than it did (and also surprised and disappointed to see that one of the users was able to derail it by repeatedly lying and generally talking nonsense).

Why do you think that the issue failed to get any traction?

Also, any thoughts on why the issue of whether or not Evrik started the thread while logged out was dismissed as being inappropriate?

Of course the issues here are all ancient history now and the thread is as good as closed, but I just wondered about these two points for my own understanding of how ANI tends to work. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The admins just like any other editor have their own personal opinions and ideas, and like any other editor can't be made to edit. Some may have believed that Graywall, even if they were not wrong, should have followed a different method. Others may have just be put off by the constant back and forth, or just been to busy elsewhere. Another thing is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not laws, and ANI is not a court. It's a place to consider and discuss editors behave, it doesn't hand out 'justice'. So it's workings can be a bit chaotic, it does work most of the time but sometimes it might not work immediately. Ultimately you make your piece and see if anyone agrees, in this case no one agreed with the initial report or subsequent proposal. As to who opened the discussion and whether it was evrik it's a question that shouldn't be asked. IP addresses can be resolved to approximate physical locations, so linking them to an editor or asking and editor to link them treads dangerously close to doxxing (see WP:DOXXING). There is also the possibility that it was all a Joe job, there are trolls who try to create drama at ANI. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks.
 * In retrospect it was unfortunate that the unsubstantiated allegations issue (that we both raised) probably obscured the more significant points to emerge from that thread - which were the walled garden that certain scouting articles seem to have become and the issues re: sourcing, COI, etc.
 * It will be interesting to see if anyone has the stomach to try to resolve those issues at the individual articles. It won't be easy given the regular canvassing employed by Evrik to distort consensus.
 * Hopefully there will be more eyes on those articles as a result of the recent thread - and that can only be for the best...
 * Oh well, thanks again for your thoughts, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Lehrmann
G'day mate Can you do me a favour a seek autoconfirmed protection for the article. I've just noticed an IP has added rapist into the first sentence of the lede again. I'd seek the protection myself but I've just gone to bed and only have my phone. Cheers, TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Requested here. Can't say I have much sympathy for the subject of the article, but it's getting out of hand. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks and agreed. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Lists of airline destinations
Hi ActivelyDisinterested, you suggested in this deletion review to have an RfC that would act as a de facto AfD. While I like this idea, I'm concerned that it would make things confusing; some of the list articles (e.g. Aeroflot) contain prose that would have to be copied to the parent article first, and then the list would have to be redirected rather than deleted per WP:PATT. After the 2018 RfC there was an attempt to delete all the lists at once, which created chaos (also, two of the lists were WP:FL at the time, and there was the issue of limited participation).

Could I ask your opinion on treating the RfC only as an RfC, but leaving notices on every stand-alone list to ensure adequate participation? Subsequent AfDs would still be required. I believe it would be easy to bundle lists like Spirit Airlines, but ones like Aeroflot may require individual AfDs or at least smaller bundles (to show that the prose has been dealt with appropriately). This is assuming the RfC results in a consensus that the lists don't belong on Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Additional caution and notification is a good idea. Taking it slow and making sure everyone has a say will hopefully lead to less contention in the future. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 16:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

A date being "banned" in a TALK PAGE!!
Does this really seem like the behaviour of a reasonable person? Regarding : NIKKI BENZ 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Again they are correct. It may seem strange but Wikipedia takes anything related to a living person very serious, the policy on it (WP:Biographies of living persons or BLP in short hand) applies to every page on Wikipedia not just the articles. That would include not displaying personal information unless it has already been widely reported or stated by the subject. What I would suggest is finding some good sources for the date of birth, and discussing them on the articles talk page. Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project, try to understand other editors concerns (even if they seem unreasonable) and work with to come to something you can both agree on. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User Sangdeboeuf is not engaging responsibly 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't stop. Grow up. Isn't very friendly either. The more fuel is put on the fire the more it burns. Spend some time finding sources, come back and prove your right. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have put sources. And again I am not even adding it to the article, but to have the date REMOVED from a talk page, how is that conducive to a discussion, when the date in question can't even be mentioned? 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IP, which part of "BLP policy ... applies to all pages, including talk pages" (patiently explained by me and ActivelyDisinterested above) are you having trouble with? There's nothing special about a random calendar date. How does naming it help the discussion? What's important is whether the sources are reliable or not. The sources you've linked are generally trash. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the sources on the talk page and comment there further. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Suissa & Sullivan
My guess is that it has nothing to do with how that paper is being used on this page but that the editor doesn't want to see it successfully challenged as WP:PROFRINGE because of its use on other pages.



Suissa & Sullivan managing to publish this bit of free-speech trolling in a prestigious journal has been very useful for sympathetic representations of famous bigots. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry Simonm223 Rowling's page is one of the areas I really don't want to get involved with. I stand by my comment at RSN, but have no comment to make on the wider issue. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of your comment
I didn't mean to delete....something went haywire. I got an EC when first trying to post my comment and when I went to redo somehow it was already in there and I just pressed the button. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No worries I was EC'd twice while posting (I started with a longer comment and then cut most of it). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)