User talk:EdChem/Archive 14

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda, it is appreciated. :)  EdChem (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please check out "Happy" once more, for his smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, I'm glad that SBHB's wikibio made it to the main page. I'm sorry that I got in the way of a January 1 appearance, wanting a hook that was accurate.  I thought that was a goal that shouldn't be problematic or difficult.  More fool me!  I then tried to help with calming down an ERRORS "discussion" rivalling the Thirty Years' War in length and which ended up back on the nom page and longer than the Hundred Years' War for every inch of the caecilian.  Feels like I tried to avert Chernobyl and still ended up with Three Mile Island.  I wonder at times why I bother with WP.  :(  EdChem (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have reminded you, - just look at it from the other end: our concert also made a good start in the year, and who would have looked on 1 Jan? Yesterday, almost 4.5k looked, which is good but 5k would have been better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine, and I'm glad it got plenty of views, though more would have been better. I get frustrated when trying to make anything better feels slower, more difficult, and less satisfying than trying to eat meatloaf through a straw.  EdChem (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A great image, thank you. I have two DYK noms that feel like it, sigh, look for the word "nom" on my user page if you care to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ... the top two in the 2018 section, Hinrichsen and Kempf, - I see that many are open but two lingering --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Leukoma staminea
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Replacement of File:Formation of pentacene by extrusion of CO.jpg
In the pentacene article, I replaced File:PentaceneSynthesis.png with File:Pentacene synthesis.svg. Either of these images illustrates the full sequence (formation of the C=O intermediate as well as extrusion of CO) and the new one includes the "bent" geometry of the carbon framework with respect to the central ring. Do we still also need a separate image for just the extrusion reaction step? Or should I cut apart that SVG to have separate files for the carbon-framework construction sequence and the extrusion reactions? DMacks (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

apology
I went some way to explaining my approach to that discussion, and have tried to provide a transparent indication of what and where my concerns arise. Do I need to do more to disassociate you from my crude critique of what I see as unproductive tendencies in our communities. I don't rate myself with users like SandyGeorgia, but immediately sympathise with the concerns they recognise in experience of someone imposing their OWN preference on an article that uses an option applied by another user while spending their OWN time, research, experience, and travelling 100 klicks to confirm a detail in an article that they know very well they do not OWN. That is the current thrust of distraction by TRM's fans, and him, one step away from claiming censhorship and really insulting to those involved. The insults he dealt me were different, and frankly ruined my bloody day; that he is being tacitly endorsed is worrying. Queue the next wave of reskinned trolls choosing an option and rampaging into articles under construction, surely an excellent way of getting a lovely big reaction from someone focused on prose and fact checking. And TRM is not averse to finding ways to interact with other users, that needs to be pointed out. I don't know JohnBod, he has comported himself reasonably well there and I know his name from page histories, neither do I know anything about you except I should not have made my general indignation a reply to your comments. Sorry. This what my business is there, hope that clarifies matters, I don't want the concerns muddied with incidental details of someone else on the receiving end. Have a good one, cygnis insignis 11:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Saxidomus gigantea
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pope Benedict Resignation article
I ask you to take a look at the talk page on that article and review Flavien's vandalism of the article. It seems he is overly protective and is totally lacking in any interest to improve the article. Several individuals have tried but he keeps vandalizing their contributions rather than responding with constructive criticism or corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:C480:29F0:D951:7DBD:9A54:55BE (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:2601:189:C480:29F0:D951:7DBD:9A54:55BE, I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Catholic Church to know for sure about your concerns... but I do know quite a bit about Wikipedia. IP edits have been reverted by several editors.  They have correctly noted that the sourcing is poor by WP standards – see WP:RS – and what is happening is not vandalism as it is defined here – see WP:VAN.   is an administrator and thus I seriously doubt that your claim that s/he is "totally lacking in any interest to improve the article" is true or fair.  It is good that you have raised concerns at the article's talk page, though your concerns are not focused on content, which they should be.  This section, for example, makes claims against editors without presenting evidence, which is called casting aspersions and potentially a violation of our policy against making personal attacks – and such posts undermine your credibility.  I advise making concrete suggestions, supported with references as appropriate.  If there really are editor conduct issues to raise, follow the dispute resolution processes.  And please remember that WP editing functions on consensus, and if most editors disagree with you, it is wise to reflect on whether you may be wrong or at least if consensus is against you and respect WP processes.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Adminship
I've been going over the first three years of entries at RfA candidate poll archives to see if there's anyone interested in RfA that hasn't given it a go yet. In your case in particular, I get a bit fed of up waiting for entries queued at In The News (such as Ranking Roger) that sat for days without any admin posting them, and which I couldn't do myself because I was involved. Are you still interested? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence,, though I've not had much to do with ITN. I have been thinking about a run, though I am unsure how my irregular editing pattern may be seen.  I'm also not a masochist, so running the RfA gauntlet is a concern as it can be such a nasty place.  EdChem (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well my point was more than if you can do DYK (which you obviously can) and you're familiar with The Rambling Man's WP:ERRORS2 (which you are), then you can post ready ITN nominations on the main page. Recent death nominations tend to be pretty straightforward affairs; you can normally get a general consensus from a couple of people within 24 hours that an article is not a stub and is thoroughly sourced and reasonably well written, and posting it is fairly trivial. In terms of activity, I've honestly got no idea why people think a continuous run of editing is important if you've already proved your worth to the project several times over. However, by June you'll have had a straight year of having edited every month, often with hundreds of edits, which should be enough to pacify any naysayers. As far as the RfA "gauntlet" goes, yeah it can seem nasty but what I've found is people are generally honest with their opinions without being particularly mean as long as you can give sensible and thoughtful answers to questions. Plus of course, once you've done it you've done it and never have to think about it again - there is no correlation whatsoever between the support tally at RfA and how good an admin somebody actually is. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Accuses me of "peddling clear falsehoods" ...
On the "Hijack" talk page, please read the diatribe aimed at me, as I fear one editor has gone a bit off the rails from WP:CONSENSUS. I am not going to write a single word more to that editor, as I find his position to be so weird as to belie belief. Thank you for what you wrote, but he clearly "owns" the article and I think he will never, ever, concede any errors. Thank you again, Collect (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted into the RM and am disappointed at the response. :(  EdChem (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias against RexxS
Regarding: this comment from WP:RFAR (I'm responding here to avoid further cluttering the case request and because it was essentially directed at me rather than the topic of the case):
 * One small concern, however, with these comments from Arbitrator, made "from a grumpy soapbox." I am concerned that these comments indicate a bias against RexxS (or at least give rise to concerns of an appearance of bias) in the (hopefully unlikely) event of his being the subject of a case request. You have clearly shown that you do not believe he should have been granted the tools, that RexxS has been given favourable treatment, and that he is an example of what you describe as a "hostile culture [that] is stifling the project."  Would you really be truly impartial, and if so would you be seen as impartial, after making such comments?  As far as I can see, you are the only Arbitrator to have commented on a way that reflects adversely on RexxS and I think that is problematic.  EdChem (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a case request about RexxS, and we've no reason to suppose there will be one in the future, so I'm not why this hypothetical is relevant. I may or may not recuse. Yes, I have an opinion about RexxS' suitability for adminship. On the other hand, that opinion was formed purely through my assessment of his conduct, not from any prior dispute or bias that would make me WP:INVOLVED. Assessing user conduct is what ArbCom does. And if following through your logic, it would imply that active arbs should never participate in RfAs? (Or perhaps should never argue 'oppose'?) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I recognise that members of ArbCom have a difficult balancing act as members of the community with the same range of choices as all other members and as people potentially to be called to decide issues at ArbCom. I've thought about it lately in light of the questions at the current ARBPOL discussion – should Arbitrators be voting to form the 100 editors supporting a policy change?  I'm inclined that they (you) should not in cases where the policy change was proposed by ArbCom, but also that it is fair and appropriate to contribute when a policy change is community led.  I know that I have raised concerns / made criticisms of ArbCom or individual Arbitrators before and like most people probably do not equally post to praise or support.  I have watched ArbCom at times for at least a decade, and am well aware that the job of Arbitrator is difficult, that you (collectively) can be in a position where you cannot fully explain when their is controversy, and will face situations where pleasing everyone (or even most editors) is a near-impossibility.  So, thank you for coming to open a dialogue and please view my concerns as exactly that – concerns – rather than judgements or some sort of condemnation.
 * On !voting in an RfA, I believe that Arbitrators should be free to contribute and have only the limitation they share with other functionaries about confidentiality. To be clear, if hypothetical editor ABCXYZ ran at RfA, I would have no issue with you !voting "Oppose – not suited to the role on temperament grounds (&pm; diffs)" or even "Oppose – was previously desysopped by ArbCom in case BLAH", though I would object (and I am confident so would you and almost everyone else) if an Arb !voted "Oppose – the private evidence in BLAH case proved that this editor is REAL PERSON and has been targeting their opponents with POV-pushing edits."  I know that you have an opinion about RexxS' suitability, and certainly I don't mean to suggest that this is improper or that you should alter your view.  So long as it is based on your interactions with RexxS, your review of his edits, reflecting on the thoughts of others, etc, then that is totally appropriate.  I might have doubts if you suggested unsuitability on some ridiculous ground – perhaps because having the letter "x" in a user name twice was a covert signal of an interest in pornography or that calling himself "Rex" suggested a mental illness where he believes he is a dog – but I am confident that your opinion is based in reason, and you are entitled to it.  So, no, I have no problem with you or any member of ArbCom !voting in an RfA.  The franchise is set at any editor with an account, and obviously you qualify.  Whether other levels of participation might raise involvement issues (in the WP sense) would only be decidable on a case-by-case basis.  If an Arb was the nominator, or participated heavily in discussions around the candidate, debating individual !votes (in either direction), offering personal recommendations or vouching for an editor, etc, then an involvement issue might arise.
 * You wrote that This isn't a case request about RexxS, a comment with which I heartily agree – and also the reason I have concerns. Your comment at the case request is very much made with your Arbitrator hat on.  In commenting on  himself, you have brought in a topic that is not central to the case request and singled out an individual over whom you have oversight responsibility in your ArbCom role.  Your second comment There is doubt expressed ... whether we can review crat actions, but whether there is anything to review with this particular crat action is directly on point to the request, and I agree with it.  ArbCom can review and does have jurisdiction to hold a case on 'crat actions, whether they are supported by policy, whether there has been misuse of 'crat authority, etc.  That is the case that has been brought, and it is what your later comments and all other Arbs have commented on in the request.  Look at your first comment, though:
 * I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports.
 * Ok so far – focused on 'crat actions. A little pre-judged for my taste, but within the bounds that are accepted at ArbCom case requests.
 * It does look like excessive leniency for an "establishment" RfA candidate,
 * Starting to veer off course – this is a reflection on the 'crats, but also on the candidate. At this point, you have labelled RexxS as an "establishment" candidate, which hints at a personal bias against some candidatures.  That that may influence your RfA !voting is fine, but if it is a bias that you bring as an Arb to a case request or case against a 'class' of administrators, that is a problem, to my way of thinking.
 * and it is particularly grating that civility concerns were dismissed given mounting evidence that a hostile culture is stifling the project.
 * Civility issues have been a problem for a long time, and I doubt that an Arbitrator could be elected who did not have some view. Your view expressed here is that there is a hostile culture stifling the project, and by implication, that the 'crats have added to it with their action and thus that RexxS is part of this hostile culture and is part of stifling the project.  You have made it clear that you disagree with the 'crat action, and your last comments – But, I'm not a crat, and they are appointed specifically for their experience in closing complex discussions. They were acting perfectly within their remit and it's not our place to overrule their decision – so decline return to the 'crat focus and note that disagreeing with a decision does not mean that those who made it were acting outside their discretion.  I am glad you added that part, because it points to the reasoning in your conclusion and the policy basis that ArbCom is authorised to review whether discretion is exceeded (which addresses the question that  has subsequently made) but that second-guessing a decision within discretion is not your role.
 * So, your reasoning and conclusion are well within your discretion and the fact that I disagree in parts doesn't mean anything more than reasonable people can disagree. The part that concerns me is that you reflected not only on RexxS' candidature, but on his likely actions as an admin.  Perhaps you disagree with how I read your comment, but I feel you have declared that RexxS is part of a hostile culture that is damaging WP (stifling the culture).  I feel that you have implied that RexxS will end up before ArbCom at some point, and that you are already expecting to sanction him.  That is why I asked about recusal, because even if you feel fully able to be an effective and unbiased Arbitrator in any future RexxS-related case, I fear that your comments give rise to at least the appearance of bias.  The case request contains plenty of criticisms and adverse reflections on individual 'crats or the 'crats as a group.  Some Arb comments contain such elements, which is acceptable given they are the focus of the request.  On rare occasions, Arbs make direct comments in case requests directed at individual editors (other than named parties), such as responding to comments or calling out problematic behaviours.  You called out RexxS (not by name, but being very clear who you meant) not for his behaviour – which I think most would agree has been exemplary during the RfA, 'crat chat, and case request – but to label him an "establishment candidate" and tag as part of a "hostile culture" that is "stifling the project."  If you meant this as a criticism of the 'crats for their handling of civility concerns, then I suggest it appears to be directed more broadly.
 * I'm happy to discuss further if you would like, and recognise that we will likely disagree at least in parts. If you chose to refactor your comments to avoid reflecting on RexxS, I think that would be good.  Thanks for taking the time to post here, and (I hope) to read my response.  EdChem (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Malpass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/David_Malpass check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/David_Malpass?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and thanks for the notification. EdChem (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, . Perhaps we can talk after your self-requested block is over?  EdChem (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

James Faulkner (cricketer)
Hi EdChem! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well! I was just reviewing the recent edits to this article and read the edits you attempted to add to it that were subsequently reverted and removed. When adding content to an article that's a biography of a living person, you need to be very careful. You must cite reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the subject when adding contentious or controversial content (like the information added the other day) to the article. This is outlined in policy, and content that's added and without sufficiently citing sources that meet the requirements represent a serious violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy - hands down, no questions asked.

The content you repeatedly added yesterday cited Twitter links and posts, which do not comply with the quality requirements defined in the policy, as well as contained details that were not mentioned in any of the sources you cited. On top of this, you repeatedly added this content back to the article despite the removal by other editors citing legitimate concerns. In the future, please keep in mind that Wikipedia takes this policy very seriously, and information that isn't referenced or supported by a secondary independent reliable source cannot be added to a BLP if it's contentious or controversial in any fashion. Had your repeated reverts and edits adding back the same content been noticed by an admin while it was going on, you likely would've been blocked (if not for the BLP violations, but for edit warring).

I'm not leaving you this message in order to scold you, beat you up, or nag at you... I just wanted to come to you informally, express my concerns with the content and revisions I saw, and let you know about it so that you're aware and can keep it on your radar. If I can take a path down the road with an editor that ends with not having to use my admin hat or the block button, I always try to take it. If you have any questions, concerns, or if you want to discuss this further, my talk page is always open to you - please don't hesitate to reach out to me there and I'll be happy to help. ;-) Thanks for listening to my concerns, I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you actually looked at the diffs, you would find that:
 * It was not I that added the link to twitter, I was trying to format them with all the proper reference details
 * It was a tweet and instagram post from the BLP subject himself, so it can be a reliable source and are permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF. Including coming out announcements like this (yes, supported with mainstream media coverage to ensure inclusion is warranted) is good editing practice – a combination of primary and secondary sourcing allows readers to see the original announcement and the responses / coverage received.
 * It was all over the news, and my edit summaries noted that RS from mainstream media were coming and were added from The Guardian, ABC News (Australia), and with more coming from The New Zealand Herald, the Hindustan Times, and other sources. It was and is obvious to anyone who looks that I had no intention of including only primary sourcing, that I was continuing to add material and references rather that revert warring.
 * It was only the revert by that actually provided any useful information on why a revert was done, earlier ones appeared to be based on IDONTLIKEIT or prejudice, sadly common even on WP when issues of sexuality sre involved.  As soon as I saw the new information from The-Pope, I looked at the noted report and I self-reverted with an explanation, started a talk page discussion, and advised Flyer22 Reborn about reverting the later IP addition as vandalism, which it was not.  I posted to the IP trying to undo the biting effect of the warning s/he received.
 * You seem to have missed this charming attack about which I posted to user talk:Mkativerata and got a ridiculous reply, as did who was called "stupid" by this former admin (User_talk:Mkativerata).
 * I am willing to accept that your post here is well intentioned, and I appreciate the tone you chose and that you took the time to compose a personal message. If you look at my editing, you will find that I am diligent about referencing whenever I edit.  Unless you count this situation, I have never been warned of being blocked, have a clean block log, and I would like to think I have earned the respect of fellow editors.  You seem to be declaring that my edits were unquestionable BLP violations, and I do not believe you are correct.  Including in a BLP that it's subject has posted about his 5 year relationship with his boyfriend is not negative information about the subject – and having checked that it was covered in mainstream media (I first saw it on breakfast news) – I started with the edit that had already been made and improved it as a citation.
 * You have characterised the additions as serious BLP violations in the deletion log for the page (under RD2), which is ridiculous. I invite you to revert as the material in question are factual statements, made by the subject and reported in the media, and are not grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive.  You also protected for serious BLP violations and to promote compliance with BLP, which is not why I posted requesting semi-protection at RfPP – most of the recent edits by IPs are mistaken but made in good faith, which is not how it sounds from what you logged.
 * I find it interesting that the IP who added that "The Homosexual" rather than "The Finisher" – changes that I removed as vandalism have not been rev-dell'd despite being (in my view) more offensive than simply stated that he came out with a link to the announcement. Do you really find the idea of a misunderstood self-disclosure of being gay is so offensive as to need to be rev-del'd, but being nicknamed "The Homosexual" is fine?  I am biased – I'm a gay man and am disappointed that Faulkner made the post when he must have known how it would be taken.  I'm also a WP editor and have added nothing on the events since his "clarification" and am waiting to see whether any comment in his article is justified, as I have noted on the article talk page.  You are here to tell me to remember BLP, which is always good advice, but also to tell me what is and is not offensive.  Let me be clear:  my being told to fuck off by a former admin is offensive.  Your judgement that coming out is offensive enough for RD2 but labelling Faulkner as "The Homosexual" is not is seriously out of alignment with mine.  Your warning me but not saying a word to Mkativerara is offensive, especially in light of the comments made to me and to Bishonen... did you even look at Mkativerara's talk page or the edit summary directed at me?
 * If you maintain that your RD2 redactions are correct, I am going to call form them to be reviewed. I don't doubt you have acted in good faith in coming here and in your use of the sysop tools, but I do think you have misread the situation.  What was added to the article was not offensive, even though it turned out to be inaccurate.  Some offensive posts (homophobic) were made, but sadly homophobia is often "routine" incivility.  Please reflect, and I look forward to your further thoughts.  EdChem (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * EdChem - Assuming that I am wrong, and your statements are correct, please accept my most humble apologies in advance. I'm going to take another look through the article's recent history and get back to you here... Stand by...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * EdChem - You are correct with your interpretation and use of WP:ABOUTSELF. I do recall this policy, but it obviously slipped past my mind when I was reviewing your edits like this one. Really, there isn't anything more to say about those edits; the policy says that the use of these sources is allowed in this situation, and that what your edits followed. I've removed the redaction to your edits as well as others during this immediate period of time, and I'm continuing to review and re-evaluate what I originally thought that I had correctly determined... which is obviously wrong (lol). Again, I owe you my apologies for not taking that policy into account and for making incorrect judgment of your edits based on that mistake. I absolutely did see the uncivil edit summary in response to your edit, and noted other edits that were vandalism. Looking back to earlier today when I was reviewing everything, I was distracted with an urgent personal matter that came up and kept taking my attention. That, on top of the different issues, edits, the request for protection... I obviously didn't draw the correct conclusions here. I truly appreciate you for taking the time to respond and outline your side of the discussion in-depth, and I ask that you please forgive me for the errors on my part. I'm going to continue going through the article, looking at the edits, and well... undoing some redactions that I now see don't apply. ;-) Thanks again, and I hope I didn't bother, frustrate, or upset you in any way...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for reflecting and reconsidering, and also for your apology, which is clearly very genuinely meant. To be honest, I was not expecting you to appreciate my explanation nor to readily admit to having been mistaken.  I can certainly understand how dealing with what you thought was a BLP violation would be your priority over incivility, especially when personal matters and real life are demanding your attention.  I appreciate you going back to reassess your actions and see what else might be worth doing.  It's an unusual case – I've made off-wiki requests for rev del of vandalism about sexuality on BLPs in the past, and I can't recall a coming out announcement that turned out to be untrue (as this one has) – and I guess mistakes are inevitable.  Thank you for considering everything I said (I'm still annoyed to have my six-line post to Mkat go unread) and for us being able to have an adult-to-adult discussion that considers each other's perspectives.  EdChem (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No words will do it justice; I dun goof'd. :-) I really appreciate your understanding, and I especially appreciate you for saying something and making sure that what was done was the right thing. I'd much rather admit to being wrong 1000 times if each result was that the correct actions were ultimately taken, than to sit and believe that I was correct 100 times when I really wasn't and have issues and improper actions left uncorrected. Yes, the main issue that caught my attention stemmed from the page request, which indicated that a recent event hit the news and that the article was getting heavily hit. I see that happen somewhat commonly, and when I deal with such issues - my main focus is the content, whether or not they're sourced, and removing problematic edits and BLP violations. One example? When news was just coming out that a BLP had just died. I go to the article's history, and I see anonymous users, new accounts, confirmed and autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, and even a few long-term experienced editors with over 50k edits engaging in a huge edit war and where each of them were trying to add completely unverified content without any kind of reference or source cited at all. Situations like this, you'll see everyone and their dog running to the article to be the first to add the content and "get it there quickly", and where verifiability and important policies go straight out the window. I of course try to take each user's tenure, experience, and other matters into account when looking at potential issues - but at the same time, I also try not to... if that makes sense at all. :-) I know a few anonymous IP users who would make great admins on Wikipedia, and I also know long-term experienced editors and even some administrators who I, quite frankly, feel don't know diddly dick about what's truly important here. I try to take the edits, facts, and information that's truly relevant into account and try not to let politics or trivial matters cloud what should be the right thing to do. Am I perfect? HELL NO. Look at what happened here as a great example (lol)... I've made more than my fair share of mistakes and stupid screw-ups on Wikipedia. Many editors here think that being a good user, admin, whoever is about not making mistakes. That's not it at all! It's not about the mistakes you make, it's what you do in response when you become aware that you've made one. There are a lot of editors who would make great leaders and guide the project significantly in a good direction... if they'd just put their pride away and learn how to say, "I'm sorry, you're right. It was my mistake." Oh... if only.... right? :-P  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   04:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree,, that being willing to say "I was wrong / I made a mistake" etc is vitally important to being a good editor. Consequently, refusing to admit to or correct a mistake is a much greater problem than making a mistake.  I usually avoid jumping in to edit when news is breaking in part because of the frenzy that you mention, but this case seemed so clear cut.  My first edit (that appears to add the twitter link etc) is actually an edit of the IP version two revisions before it. was actually this diff from my perspective. The IP's addition was removed when I was formatting it and so FYI what appears as an addition was actually a substitution from my perspective.  Reflecting on the history, what was to me adding refs and expanding content has, because of intervening reverts that led to edit conflicts, been made to look much more editwar-like from the outside... something for me to remember for the future.  I've not been an admin and had to evaluate something from your perspective, and I agree that too much focus on reputation and tenure, etc, can lead to poor decision-making.  Fixing the IP's reference but not adding a secondary RS to support it was not the best choice on my part.  I knew of those refs and was about to add them but doing so in my first edit would have made the situation clearer from the outside.  I also strongly agree with your comment that [i]t's not about the mistakes you make, it's what you do in response when you become aware that you've made one – Mkativerata's responses to me and Bishonen say a lot about judgement and character, in my view... more than is shown by the edit summary in the first place.  Some editors lack the capacity to maturely provide leadership through example.  :(  EdChem (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a different level of tolerance, patience, dedication, care, civility, and... heh... temper... than others. It may be frustrating and irritating at times to have to tolerate and be kind to those who aren't kind to you (heh, I have to do that all the time! lol), but in the end - they only make things harder on themselves in the long-term. Hey cool, this situation overall was a positive and good one then; it sounds like we both were able to reflect, evaluate, and learn from one another - a win/win to me! :-) I've removed the redaction I placed on the remainder of the edits. It's obviously clear that I had incorrect findings in mind when I applied them. While it's okay to err on the side of caution and redact potentially serious issues pending a review (I've had to do that a number of times), I try not to leave anything redacted for longer than necessary, and I obviously don't leave things redacted that shouldn't be. The article is still protected; that was definitely needed due to some unfererenced changes and vandalism occurring by anonymous users (lol, probably the only thing I did there that was correct today...). I'm going to look into the incivility and the issues of vandalism and other disruption that was going on, and follow up with those. It's definitely not okay for edit summaries like these to be left, so I'll most likely be talking to this user next and leaving them the same kind of message that I left on your user talk page initially (this time I hopefully won't look like an idiot when I do so... LOL). Thanks again, and please know that my user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me any time you need or want to. Sorry we had to meet in these circumstances, but nonetheless... it truly was a pleasure to meet you. Keep up the excellent work, and please don't let yourself change how civil, mature, calm, understanding, and thoughtful you are. Your personality, skills, and temperament are things that can't be easily learned, are absolute diamonds in a pit of pure darkness, and this project needs more people like this. ;-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your kind words and also your view that my style is valuable for WP. I'm sorry to say, though, that I am also disappointed that your comment I'm going to look into the incivility and the issues of vandalism and other disruption that was going on, and follow up with those. It's definitely not okay for edit summaries like these to be left, so I'll most likely be talking to this user next and leaving them the same kind of message that I left on your user talk page initially (this time I hopefully won't look like an idiot when I do so... LOL) does not appear to me to have been followed up with any action.  When I posted to  with the carefully-worded message that begins the user talk:Mkativerata section, I got the ridiculous reply that a six line message is too long to read but obviously I had come to apologise... and then I got told off for posting news that was on news sites around the world, mixed with a common homophobic meme about LGBT visibility.   started another section (User_talk:Mkativerata) only to be called "stupid" by this former admin.  I would drop it but I don't think the message that such postings and / or edit summaries are not acceptable has been received, and the comment in an RfA !vote that "[a]nyone who disagrees is an idiot" about his or her own view is not an encouraging sign of collegiality.  I also don't think that I should have to just accept being told to fuck off and then having a homophobic meme thrown at me – whether or not Mkativerata realised that's what it was.  Mkativerata has made 11 posts in 2019 and in so doing raised at least four areas of concern.  I had hoped you'd say something that might encourage some reflection or moderation, even some awareness that their actions went too far.  EdChem (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * EdChem - I'm sorry to hear that you're disappointed to not see a follow-up message from me to address the civility issues. I had looked on the user's talk page, saw the messages by Bishonen and other editors regarding his/her civility, and thought that since talking to the user was already done, that they would be looking into things and either escalating or following up with it. I didn't want to be duplicating the effort of others and step on their toes. It was also late that night and I needed to get some sleep. I'm pinging Bishonen about this here in order to get his input about the situation and what he suggests that we do, and I'll go from there. My lack of a message to the user wasn't because I didn't care about the problem or because I wanted to blow off your concerns. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI,, Bishonen is a "she" rather than a "he". I had wondered whether to respond to Mkativerata's posts to me and was glad to be able to hold off once you said you'd likely follow up on the edit summary.  I know you handle a lot of things on WP and all for a salary that doubled would still not alter your bank balance and you aren't obligated to do anything.  Sadly, I feel that it's now likely that nothing will happen, that Mkativerata can ignore everything or just tell anyone to go away and carry on regardless.  It's the kind of situation that I find discouraging and that can lead me to taking time away from WP.  :(  EdChem (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Aww, damn it, I usually always check the user page and refer to others with the proper gender. For some stupid reason, I didn't check and I incorrectly assumed that Bishonen was male. Bishonen can (and likely will) vouch for me when I say that I'm much less afraid to talk to users and take administrative actions against them for repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy than most others. It absolutely does need to stop, and I dislike seeing users get away with blatant and open disregard for civility as much as you do. However, talking to users about civility is something you have to do in a firm but different way than if you were talking to them about other issues. Else, they'll just blow you off and/or tell you to "hit the road" as well. Since Bishonen has talked to this user and know more about the situation and this user's conduct than I do, I think it's best that we wait for her (lol) to respond to my ping so that we can take the appropriate next step. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had no idea that what I said to you on my talk page invokes a homophobic meme. I believe you - my antenna is not great in these areas as much as I would like it to be - and I apologise for hurt that it caused. —Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment, I am not surprised that you invoked the meme by accident as some of them don't sound homophobic on the surface. I am disapointed, though, that you haven't recognised that this edit summary was inappropriate and unacceptable.  :(  EdChem (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that would have commented here by now if she intended to.  Sadly, I doubt there is much that you or she or I can achieve at this point, however.  EdChem (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mkativerata - Please remember to keep Wikipedia's civility policy in mind when communicating with others, and when adding comments or summaries. The edit summary you added with your edit to James Faulkner (cricketer) was not acceptable; we need to be fair towards others, give them the benefit of the doubt when we're not sure, and treat them with the level of decency and respect that you would expect from others. If you disagree with the edits or changes made by another editor, you're expected to discuss and resolve it properly through fair and peaceful collaboration. Resorting to uncivil comments and personal attacks yields absolutely no benefit, and it only makes things more difficult for everyone. Please keep this in mind, and please remember that you're expected to comply with these policies at all times. Thank you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you,, for your kind words, and my condolences on the loss of your partner. EdChem (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for XIX Army Corps
Ed, do you have time or plans to make further edits at XIX Army Corps or Template:Did you know nominations/XIX Army Corps? Thanks for the work you have done so far. Flibirigit (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Godwin’s law
Calling WP:REMOVED the gestapo is just standard internet trolling: see Godwin’s law. We don’t revdel for that, but undoing the revdel would be more trouble than it’s worth. Context matters, and some random IP using a Nazi analogy isn’t a big deal. If anything, keeping it unrevdel’d would have been better so people could have seen it and requested further action against the IP if it hopped to a new address, etc. I’m not getting into a back and forth about this, but if you think stuff like this should ordinarily qualify for revdel, you need to start an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , it appears that you are correct that the consensus view is that the comment does not fall within RD2 and is instead seen as "ordinary incivility." I am at a loss to understand how the comment does not qualify (in the words of WP:RD2) as "[g]rossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy."  I'm aware of Godwin's Law but it does not alter that stating that an editor is a member of an organisation know for torture, murder, and facilitating the Holocaust is a clear violation of our BLP policy, has no encyclopaedic or project value, and is a grossly offensive / insulting claim to make.  That such things happen regularly and that you (and apparently, others) see it as no big deal does not alter the wording of RD2, which refers to the potential to offend / insult / degrade the target.  Your point that it is "standard internet trolling" may make you and others disinclined to act, but I am concerned about how that inaction is experienced by the target and perceived by others.  My reading of RD2 is that it mandates action and the inference I draw from the lack of action is a disregard for the target or a shocking standard for what qualifies.  If standard practice is indeed that such comments don't qualify for RD2, its wording needs to be changed to better convey what does and does not qualify.  Also, I was careful not to repeat the claim made in my comments and out of respect for the editor involved, I have removed the name from your post.  As I find associating an editor with the Gestapo to be "[g]rossly insulting, degrading, or offensive," I ask that you not reinstate it, though I do note (for the record, as it were) that you did not claim any such association was true and that your paraphrase was not a BLP violation.  EdChem (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)