User talk:Butlerblog/Archives/2023/February

The Signpost: 4 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Butlerblog/List of Death Valley Days episodes
Hello Butlerblog,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Butlerblog/List of Death Valley Days episodes for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Butlerblog/List of Death Valley Days episodes to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * FTR, it was left over from a page move prior to moving a draft into main space. It serves no purpose and can be deleted.   Butler Blog   (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:WikiProject Westerns articles by task force


A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject Westerns articles by task force indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This got left empty during the creation and tagging of some task force items. It is no longer empty.   Butler Blog   (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Butlerblog. After reviewing your request, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AButlerblog enabled] rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

The Signpost: 20 February 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Continuing Editoral Issues on Taleeb Noormohamed page via CanadaScholar23
We are continuing to see this editor remove content that is pertinent and well-sourced to the subject. They have been warned multiple times by other editors and this has included comments on their user page. I apologize for involving you in this issue and I appreciate whatever you can do to make clear to them that these wholesale deletions of content is inappropriate. Again - they have been warned repeatedly. Personally, I believe they should be blocked from editing the page, as their 'errors in judgement'invariably seek to delete accurate, pertinent and well-sourced information that is embarrassing to the subject, but I leave that to your discretion. You may wish to refer to comments replacing their deletions or simply visit their page to note that they have been warned many many times by several different editors to refrain from this behavior. I appreciate whatever you can do to help rectify this issue. NiceTryEarl (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Before any content issues are addressed, let me raise some caution flags here. You're asking for an editor to have some type of sanctions here, and the way that happens is going to WP:ANI.  But when you take something to ANI, not only is that editor's behavior under scrutiny, but yours is also (see WP:BOOMERANG).  There are a number of problems here in which you need to address the log in your own eye before you worry about the splinter in theirs.
 * Assume good faith (WP:AGF). Accusing another editor of vandalism directly is not assuming good faith.  Vandalism, as we define it here (WP:VANDAL), is editing willfully made in bad faith.  Removal of content - even if it has a source - is not necessarily vandalism by our terms.  There is no evidence of bad faith here.  The issue appears to be a difference of opinion on what is due/undue weight (see: WP:DUE).  Editing here is a collaborative effort.  That's how we work towards WP:NPOV, because as much as we'd all like to think we have a neutral point of view, no one really does.  We all bring biases to the table.  Collaborative effort helps mitigate that.
 * Accusing another editor of vandalism can be construed as WP:UNCIVIL. Unless you have hard evidence that another user's edits meet the definition of vandalism (WP:VANDAL), it's best to not use the term - it's aggressive, uncivil, and will come back to bite you.  Doing it on a user's talk page or the article talk page is bad.  Doing it in an edit summary is worse.  Avoid using edit summaries to address user behavior, most often that's not the appropriate place for it. (Note: there is a time and place for accusations of vandalism, but none of that exists in this instance, IMO)  Edit summaries should focus on the changes made and why, but the edit summary by you on this edit  is most definitely uncivil.  You've got no evidence that the user made these edits in bad faith.  What would have been appropriate as a summary out of what you have?  A simple "Restoring long-standing, well-sourced content" would have been sufficient.  Beyond that, open a discussion with the other editor by adding "See Talk" to your edit summary and then open a discussion - a discussion focusing on the content - NOT the editor behavior.  Editor behavioral issues are best addressed on user talk pages.  Even then, be careful in what you say and how you say it.  There's definitely a right way and a wrong way.
 * Now, addressing the content issues - which is what these are - right now, that's between you and the other editor. Open a discussion on the talk page, ping them, and work through it.  Keep in mind that just because something has a source doesn't mean it should be in the article.  Refer back to due/undue weight above.  Also, just because something is long-standing doesn't mean it's somehow "approved".  This article is most likely not at the top of very many watch-lists - so something that's been there a long time doesn't necessarily mean it should be there.  The important thing is that this is a BLP and it MUST comply with WP:BLP.  Editing BLP's requires a far greater degree of neutrality than other articles.  Note that "neutral" does not mean "balanced".  We don't concern ourselves with "covering both sides" but rather whether something is conveyed in a way that simply states the facts, and that what is included does not constitute undue weight (either positive or negative).  However, those facts must be notable and relevant.  And that seems to be what the core disagreement is between you and the other editor.  Note: I'm not saying they're "right" and you're "wrong" on the content - I have no position on that at this time - I'm merely pointing out how you need to approach it and address it.
 * Establish consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) - You've already tried to establish consensus through editing. There is still a difference of opinion.  So now you have to try to establish consensus through discussion.  There's no reason not to open a dialog with the other editor.  If you don't, anything you take to ANI or to other mediation is going to come back with a response of "why didn't you try to discuss this?"  If they simply will not discuss it, then you can take it to next steps (which in this case wouldn't be ANI because the user isn't doing anything that is behaviorally bad - your gripe is a content issue, and ANI is for editor behavior - which can include what they do with content, but not the difference of opinion on what should be included or not - hope that distinction is clear).  Helpful: WP:CONDD
 * If you've discussed it and cannot reach consensus, you may need a third opinion. See WP:3O.  You can also seek dispute resolution (WP:DRN).  As before, address the content, not the editor.
 * Keep the user's behavior out of it in the above until is clear that they are acting in bad faith (and even then, mind your P's & Q's with how you state your point). If they are activing in bad faith and persist in bad faith, then you can seek a topic or article ban or some sanctions through ANI.  But at this point, it's nothing more than a content dispute and you haven't done anything as of yet to address it with the other editor specifically and directly.
 * Butler Blog  (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On a content note: a cursory overview of the most recent disputed content, I don't see any particular issues with what you've restored. But you MUST consider how you address it with the other editor.    Butler Blog   (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)