User talk:Grorp/Archive 1

January 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Brigid's cross has been reverted. Your edit here to Brigid's cross was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq0ci42PnLc) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

From JByrne404
Hey there @grorp ! I just wanted to say thank you for your recommendation to use the conflict of interest posting on the Raw Story talk page. It seems like a good idea to get more editors involved with that page. Thank you again. If you have time to look at some of Nathalie's old requests (at some point in the future) that would also be great. But let's let some other editors get involved with the new award, I guess. JByrne404 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ghostarchive
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concern. My involvement in Wikipedia is very limited currently but I did add myself to the list of admin's willing to investigate copyright matters, so let's see if I can provide some help. The second question is the appropriate forum for discussion. Thus dependent on the issue which of course is the first question. While you have articulated the issue I haven't yet put my finger on the exact issue. It's quite understandable that you started at reliable sources noticeboard. The issue has copyright considerations, but it's broader than that so my current thinking is Village pump policy might be the best place to start. That said, I'm going to start at your talk page so we can sort through how best to ask the question at that page. It is my experience that sometimes a two casually worded inquiry turns into a debate about clarification issues, and sometimes get so off-track trying to define the issue, that the thread dies a death before addressing the substantive issue. I'll start by a bit of a dump, let's see if we can clean it up and put something together.

Linkrot
Wikipedia cares about this issue, although one could debate whether enough resources are dedicated to it. Wikipedia is supportive of initiatives such as the Internet Archive. One can debate whether enough resources have been allocated to this important initiative. One can also discussed the possibility that if all archiving is done with one site, we are screwed if that site goes away. I think the Internet archive is in pretty good shape now, but I can recall when it’s future was in doubt. That might lead to an argument that having alternative archive options is a good thing. But even that discussion leads into a complicated discussion.

Status of ghostarchive
There’s little doubt that this archive is not in the same category as other archivers, but is that relevant? Someone suggested that we allow anonymous editors to add content to articles, so if we don’t vet contributors to content why should we vet archivers? I don’t find that argument persuasive. We allow anonymous contributors precisely because we require edits to be supported by reliable sources. One complication is that an archiver is not a source, so we have to debate whether archiver’s also ought to be vetted as reliable. I suggest we cannot simply dismiss the suggestion simply because we allow contributors to be non-vetted. My initial reaction is that we ought to vet archiver’s, but while we built up a mechanism to review the reliability of sources, I’m not aware that we have such a mechanism for archivers. That sounds like a major task.

Evading copyright
I did read the interesting article YES, IT’S ILLEGAL TO CHEAT A PAYWALL: ACCESS RIGHTS AND THE DMCA’S ANTICIRCUMVENTION PROVISION but while the title clearly says it’s illegal, my take away from the text is that the answer is “maybe”. I confess to partially reading the article and perhaps I need to take a closer read.

Examples
You did link to a long list of articles linking to Ghostarchive.org. I only looked at one Croatia, and my initial reaction is that this particular usage is not an example of circumventing a pay wall. In fairness, you didn’t purport that all such uses were inappropriate, but if we are going to have a policy discussion, it’s important to make it easy for contributors to understand the issue, so at a minimum, at least one and preferably a small handful of specific problematic edits is appropriate. I see you have 728 edits. I hope you don’t mind if I treat you as a relatively new editor who does not have experience with the unwritten rules of noticeboards. Let me share one example which is easy to argue is unfair but I’m telling you that it exists and shouldn’t be ignored. There are literally hundreds of times some editor has come to a noticeboard claimed a problem exists. When asked for examples the editor responds with example 1, example 2,… Example 10. So far it sounds like they’ve done exactly the right thing. However, a contributor to this discussion (and I’ll confess I’ve done this) responds. I looked at example one and it didn’t support your contention. I went on to look at example 2 and it didn’t support your contention. I looked at example 3 and it didn’t support your contention. I stopped looking. It’s too late to come back with “you should’ve looked at example 5 it really supports my claim”. You’ve lost the audience. I think it was perfectly except for you to provide a link identifying that the 67,000 links to the archive. That’s relevant information, as it’s going to be hard to get people excited if there are three. I’m not disputing that there are problematic examples in that list, but contributors to a discussion want to be spoon-fed examples. You are asking people to spend time and energy thinking hard about a situation, and you want to meet them at least halfway by providing clear examples of the problem. (Rereading my response I can see why it might sound like I’m criticizing you, I don’t have time to rewrite, please AGF; I’m trying to help) There are other issues that I will stop here for now. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Just following up to tie up loose ends. It was clear to me from your response that you had misunderstood my initial report. I had drafted a detailed reply to you with further evidence and laying out my points clearly, but in the end set it aside and didn't post it — too much work/drama for a hobby. And because if some other users are using ghostarchive.org to circumvent copyright and that gets Wikipedia in trouble, that's not really my problem because I'm not adding any ghostarchive links on Wikipedia, and I feel I've sufficiently notified admins of the problem. Do with the report whatever you want. Grorp (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no plans. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Grorp! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 06:15, Saturday, December 31, 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * : Me posting a level 1 template to caution you for OR/SYNTH (1, 2, & 3) was appropriate. This post, which seemed hastily posted as retaliation, however, was not appropriate. Grorp (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

List of Scientologists
... ...'s post, 04:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thread has been moved to Talk:List of Scientologists. Grorp (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Beccaynr (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You have been edit warring against four editors at Vivian Kubrick and List of Scientologists, repeatedly trying to remove content that is covered by at least five reliable sources. Cautioning me on my user talk page (twice now), with consensus against you, isn't constructive and doesn't help your arguments about article content taking place over at Talk:List of Scientologists. Please keep your remarks about this issue at the article talk page. Grorp (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Criminy, Beccaynr, I don't need a rehash here, especially when I just told you to keep that stuff on the article talk page, not here. Please don't even respond here. Grorp (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make this simpler. Stay off my user talk page completely, Beccaynr. WP:HUSH. WP:USERTALKSTOP. Grorp (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make this simpler. Stay off my user talk page completely, Beccaynr. WP:HUSH. WP:USERTALKSTOP. Grorp (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll make this simpler. Stay off my user talk page completely, Beccaynr. WP:HUSH. WP:USERTALKSTOP. Grorp (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WEF
Hello, I'm Dewritech. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to World Economic Forum have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Dewritech (talk)  17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistakenly "undid" the wrong "do". As my edit summary indicated, I meant to remove the three words, not insert them. (I think my brain was jumbled after reading all the Vector 2022 discussions/diffs yesterday.) I don't know how I missed that you had already done what I intended to do (thus wrongly reverting your fix). I'll be more careful next time. Grorp (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sock
Thanks. You were correct: they are now blocked--but that's about all I can do, unless I drop a hard block on a few million internet users. ;) Next time (if you like), you can go to WP:SPI; you can file a new report (using the name of the sockmaster) and put the evidence there, but I don't mind you letting me know. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Grorp (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please research Palmer Report Political site. Attack made on them like Raw Story.
I am a huge fan of raw story and Palmer Report. THANK you for cleaning up Raw story. When or if you have time -- and I do not want to bother you -- please take a look at Palmer Report because some editors did the same thing to them. Please!

They labeled raw story a junk news site which you fixed. Palmer got "hyper-partisan, fake news Website." Palmer Report

See right below for how it looks now.

I copied/pasted. It was implemented by the same one who did that to Raw Story.

The Palmer Report is an American liberal[2] fake news website,[3] founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer.[4] It is known for making unsubstantiated or false claims,[5] producing hyperpartisan content,[6] and publishing conspiracy theories,[7][8] especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia.[14]

For months (years) scores of people have been pleading with the editors there to take the "hyper partisan, fake news website" out of the header.

It is not accurate. It was put there by the same person who muddied up Raw story -- a republican. I along with dozens -- literally dozens of people protested. We felt it was an attack, a vicious one. The response was always send some reliable sources to counter it.

Only nobody ever used the term "hyper-partisan, fake news website" about Palmer Report in the first place. I spent four hours trying to find a source and asked several times. There are some obscure republican sources. They never used, to the best of my knowledge any of those terms. They also locked the page when people tried to change it and called it vandalism. But everyone I saw came in good faith. The Palmer Report is not fake news and is very much like Raw Story. I had a source -- Brian Williams from MSNBC did a segment several tears ago and used information from their site. I was told that was not interesting enough to put on the site and then they ignored me and all the others. You an easily see this through old Talk pages because there are over a dozen complaints.

Sorry for long post. I do hope I posted in the right place and hope maybe you can help.

Norah 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I started tackling Raw Story; it was a lot of work. When I started, I didn't know anything about it, nor do I know anything about Palmer Report. I'm in the middle of several other projects right now, so it would be a while before I could even look at it. In the meantime, I'll give you some suggestions. First, get yourself an account; to edit that article you need an account that is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits.


 * If someone indeed said send some reliable sources to counter it, then they misdirected you. You will never find a reliable source that writes '________ is NOT a junk news site'. You don't need more citations, you would need to challenge the ones being used. Are they reliable sources? Are any citations used from websites known as less-than-reliable? Check the list at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Did the citation actually say that, or did the wiki editor paraphrase so much they basically wrote their own conclusions (WP:Original research). Did the writers of several citations/sources cite each other (meaning it's not another new opinion, but instead a repetition of the same single original writer republished over and over again)? My approach to cleaning up a mess is to first rip out the trash, then rebuild from the remaining core.


 * It sounds like you're familiar with some of the citations, which is more of a head start than I would have. Tag in the article anything that isn't verifiable by the citations given. Double-check the citations just to make sure before tagging. A good tag to use (based on what you told me) is Template:Failed verification span. You put it around the specific words in the article that are NOT supported by the cited source. Other tags you can use are mentioned in Template:Inline cleanup tags.


 * You should start with content after the lead section. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, so trying to argue a point in the lead won't be productive until you have been through the rest of the article and know there is nothing there supporting particular words or phrases someone put in the lead.


 * Happy hunting. Good luck. Grorp (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply! I wanted to answer you and I especially wanted to thank you because yours was a very kind response.
 * I am sorry but I cannot do what you suggested for lots of reasons. But most importantly -- Many people, most without accounts like me tried to edit and edits immediately reverted. I was not one of them because I have no idea how to actually DO an edit. I heard about all this from a friend and that is how I came to be involved.
 * I know nothing about how to use Wiki templates or even most of the terminology you are describing. It's all like another planet to me. Also -- and I want to be nice -- SO many people have argued and pleaded with and begged the editors over on Palmer. I at one point talked at length with the few who monitor the page and I could not get anywhere. I asked over and over for sources -- ignored. I, along with so many others challenged sources, asked for a vote (I was told Wiki does not do votes), demanded a source -- any source that said that word for word. It was like arguing with robots. (sorry.) But they were not kind. That's the best way to put it. And I devoted hours to this.
 * The person who did this to Palmer is the same who did it to Raw story. And I have (minor) health issues and I simply am emotionally drained from the experience of going round with them. I was thrilled to see Raw Story fixed. (I'd also gone to bat for them so that is why I figured I'd email you.)
 * I know wiki editors are very busy so I understand and even if it takes a year or two! I'd just ask you tuck them away in the back of your mind and if you ever have any free time or if you know any kind editors who do. I think I have done as much as I humanly can.
 * Thanks for your very kind response.
 * ####Norah 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on my watchlist. Yes, I can see from the history and another tool that Swag is the author of over 50% of that article. I also recall reading somewhere that their mission was to clean up Wikipedia of left-wing propaganda (not exact words; that's a paraphrase, and I don't have time to hunt down the quote). Fighting against other editors is indeed draining, especially when they are political activists. My wiki hobby isn't political; it's cleaning up exaggerations, lies, and bias. We have more than enough of that crap on the internet that there's no need to mirror it here on Wikipedia. Grorp (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking me seriously. You have no idea how much it's appreciated. And yes, it was Swag. It was really hard to communicate with them over there. I appreciate that you understand. Thank you.
 * #### Norah 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

How to re-activate a long-deleted assessment table for an inactive Wikiproject (WP 1.0 bot)
(Skip to tl;dr)

Background
I was working on re-activating the WP:WikiProject Scientology which had been set to "status=inactive" for several years. Specifically, I was trying to reactivate the automated process that fills the colored assessment table. The necessary files had been deleted a few years back and the bot would no longer work for this wikiproject. I worked through the process, reading what I could find, and debugging where I could. In the end, I was able to successfully resurrect the assessment table.

I found three discussions (1, 2, 3) where someone else had been trying to recreate an inactive wikiproject assessment table and never got it working, so I thought I'd better write up what I did so others can follow the steps.

These are the steps I performed

 * Edited the talk page banner   from 'WPBannerMeta/inactive' to 'WPBannerMeta'
 * Edited the project page WikiProject Scientology, changing 'WikiProject status' from 'Inactive' to 'Semi-active'
 * Read Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot
 * Re-created 30 or so category pages per those instructions (using Wikiproject Religion as a template and didn't think about WP:REFUND at the time).
 * Used WP:REFUND on the final category file I'd missed, per deletion log of 12 August 2021.
 * It would have been much easier to ask for a REFUND (undelete) of the 30 or so category files. To find your missing files in the deletion log, first try to create one of the missing files and it will tell you the date and time it was deleted. Use that date and time to narrow down the time period in the deletion logs, then search for your project name. Red links are your missing files and they should be clumped together.
 * Tried to bootstrap the process with https://wp1.openzim.org/#/ but it didn't seem to do anything.
 * Stopped for the day and came back the following day to find some of the quality-categories had been filled, though the colored horizontal tables of contents (TOC) were not updated with numbers (they were zero), and the importance-categories were still all empty. A few hours later the importance-categories were filled and some of the TOCs were updated with numbers. I'm guess it's either a caching issue or the bot needed to make another pass through the files.
 * Made sure Category:Scientology articles by quality had

(which adds a colored horizontal TOC with a refresh button). Then clicked the button. Since the subcategories had been filled, the TOC numbers now updated instantly.
 * Made sure Category:Scientology articles by importance had

(colored TOC with a refresh button). And clicked the button.
 * Edited each quality-category to ensure it contained:


 * Edited each importance-category to ensure it had:


 * Re-ran https://wp1.openzim.org/#/ for good measure.
 * Checked for the new assessment table at:
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scientology articles by quality statistics
 * WikiProject Scientology/Assessment
 * WikiProject Scientology
 * Success!

Afterthoughts
Clearly "time" was needed for this to work. I suppose the bot, running in the background, just needed to do its thing. I found it interesting that after about 12 hours the quality-categories had been filled, but the importance-categories had not. Though a few hours later still, the importance-categories seemed to have updated (without me manually kicking the bot again).

Many of the TOCs in the sub-categories had not been updated (they showed all zeros). I'm not sure if clicking the refresh button on the two main category pages (importance & quality) had an effect of filling the TOCs in each sub-category with numbers, or whether that was another caching issue the background bot just had to do on its own. Note that no amount of refreshing my computer browser fixed much of anything. It's like there was a database for the numbers behind the scenes that these TOCs would display, and if the numbers weren't there, they just weren't available for display. The refresh button associated with the TOCs must be a function deeper than a browser refresh.

The full assessment table was still not showing, and I don't know if the final bot-launch or clicking 'refresh' on the two main category pages' TOC fixed it, but finally they showed up in the three places I expected to see the full table.

It is possible that the process was somewhat 'recursive' (?) or layered (?) and required several passes for the bot to go through its entire process and get all the work done. It definitely took far longer than the "0-200 minutes" quoted on the manual bot starter button.

Discussion
I offer my hard-won instructions above to anyone who wants or needs them. Pinging:
 * who wanted the old Wikiproject Popular Culture assessment table back (current version)
 * who was the admin who was just housecleaning old files from inactive wikiprojects and was sympathetic to Piotrus but didn't know how to restore the table for him
 * who created the current (because he might want to know how to restore a deleted table for the next person who asks him)

Grorp (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That is much appreciated, and probably should be copied somewhere. I assume you have seen Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_197. I'll also ping User:Aymatth2. I'll note that while we are now working on future proofing the system, I am all for reactivating all assessments which were deleted with no justification in the past. Could this be automated? Can we have the bot set all inactive pages/banners to active and undelete deleted categories? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I had not seen that thread. I'll check it out. I suppose the process could be automated, but I did everything by hand. I'm no bot-engineer. Did you read the tldr section above? Grorp (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. TL;DR the linked thread is about avoiding this problem in the future, while what you did and what I greatly appreciate is about fixing the problem caused by past bad actions in the past that some admins did in the name of cleanup (AGF, I am sure they thought they are doing the right thing, sigh). Both compliment one another. You may want to report your findings in the same VP, starting a discussion (vote) about mass REFUNDing all of that stuff that got inactivated/deleted. I'd certainly support it! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I sure was late to that party; I see it's already been archived. Although I would support a tool to undelete those categories and resurrect an individual inactive wikiproject, I'm not sure I support doing it automatically for all ~340 inactive wikiprojects. Though, I wouldn't object. Grorp (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The current criteria for evaluating if a wikiproject as 'inactive' is faulty. Why does no/low/slow activity on a wikiproject's TALK page mean a project is inactive? Just a year ( random choice of time period ) of having all the articles in the project broadcasting the 'inactive' status on article talk pages is enough to turn all editors into solo editors with no collaboration at all. The wikiprojects could maybe get marked as "semi-active", but I object to the "inactive" label and the hiding of the assessment levels on article talk pages. Labelling a project inactive and hiding the assessments is contrary to the editing "community" we try so hard to encourage.

An example of this is I am re-activating the wikiproject Scientology. There was little to no communication on the talk page for a long time, but there are 32 talk-archive pages of 150K each on the article Scientology! That's a lot of talking about the subject on just one article's talk page; much of which should have occurred over at the wikiproject... but it was 'inactive', you see. There's a lot of editing going on with the topic across related pages, just no wikiproject-talk-page discussions. But why would there be... it's 'inactive'! You see the Catch-22?

Labelling a wikiproject 'inactive' is its death knell. Labelling it 'semi-active' at least leaves a door cracked open a little. Resurrecting an 'inactive' wikiproject shouldn't be as difficult as it is, but wouldn't have been a problem if the bot-engineers had never decided to bypass inactive wikiprojects. Grorp (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see the value of tagging wikiprojects as inactive, and oppose removing assessments for inactive wikiprojects. There could be minor value in deleting a wikiproject that has had no sign of life for several years and has very narrow scope. The quality assessment can be retained in the new WikiProject banner shell. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aymatth2 I can't see even a minor value in deleting this - such stuff is useful for historical research on Wikipedia's history. Will one of you start a new VP about restoring this stuff? I know I can do it myself but I'll plead having very busy IRL and on-wiki time right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the proposal to revive inactive project categories got enough support we can go ahead with it. is working on changes to WikiProject banner shell and WPBannerMeta, and could add in an y parameter at the same time. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aymatth2 Great. How do we actually "go ahead with it"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Comment? I think it can just be folded into the WikiProject banner shell and WPBannerMeta project. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change the format on List of Scientologists?
I’m not criticising you or saying you should change it back but I’m curious as to why you changed it because I thought it was fine the way it was. Bob3458 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I put my reasoning on the article's, talk page: Talk:List of Scientologists. Sorry I didn't reply earlier; my internet has been out for two days. Grorp (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice
Your recent edits to Raw Story could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are referring to. If there is something sensitive you wish to convey not-so-publicly, then please send me an email. Grorp (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this: "I'm sure Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't enjoy lawsuits from any organization who was slandered or libeled." Please quickly familiarize yourself with our WP:THREAT policy, specifically the section Perceived legal threats. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not work for Raw Story nor have any relation with them, so I fail to see how it would be a threat from me to anyone. I was referring to the concept enshrined in Wikipedia policy WP:LIBEL. To wit:
 * Per WP:LIBEL, "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Page revisions containing libelous content should also be removed from the page history. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences."
 * Per WP:THREAT, "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified."
 * I can't believe I even have to point this out. Grorp (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "I fail to see how it would be a threat" That's going to be a problem. Chetsford (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Grorp, from the point of view of an administrator who has to safeguard various interests in our beautiful project, it's not a far stretch to see your comment as hinting at a lawsuit. You may not see how this can be perceived as a threat, but you (I presume) know 100% sure what your situation is and what your intentions are. On the other side, 's side and my side, we do not have that kind of certainty. It's a matter of perception, and from our side "I'm sure that..." has a slight "if you know what's best for you" ring to it. So, I guess I'm urging you to see it from that side too. And note also that Chetsford hasn't blocked you; they're warning you, urging you to see the matter from their side. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Grorp - in addition to Drmies good advice; just to clarify, you face no concern of me taking any administrative action as I'm involved in the discussion. My note was a friendly caution only and not a Sword of Damocles. Speaking merely as a fellow editor, removing content that consists almost entirely of a direct quote from an unambiguous RS like Discourse & Society by loudly declaring it's slanderous and suggesting you are therefore acting under some sort of veto power granted you by WP:LIBEL; then following that up with a warning that the WMF could be sued to death if it's restored, is very similar to the approach the parade of whitewashing new and IP editors who regularly breeze through places like Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and Palmer Report take. And I've never seen that work yet. Chetsford (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of redirects
Hi Grorp. Why did you remove this redirect? Is there some higher purpose? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Long story. (tldr=It's what I'm doing over at WP:SCN and I had one remaining Raw Story redirect in my watchlist so I did that one, too. I'm willing to be corrected if my method is flawed.)


 * It all started with me trying to corral all the redirects in Wikiproject Scientology. So many times I would search for a redirect and not find it (bug of search bar?). I started tagging talk pages of WP:SCN redirects with so they would appear on the project assessment page and I could keep track of them. Some redirects had no talk page (and therefore no tagging of the wikiproject), so I would create those talk pages and tag them. One day I came across Template:Talk page of redirect; that seemed handy. Another day I would try to go to a talk page I knew was there, but someone would have renamed the page to something very similar. A recent example was Fair game (Scientology) and Fair Game (Scientology); I tried to go specifically to Talk:Fair Game (Scientology) and didn't realize it had automatically redirected me. Most annoying. I also found that there was a variety of talk page formats/styles — some had been redirected to new talk pages (from a move), and others had not (mix of moves and TNT-to-redirect). Neither the existence nor lack of content on talk page seemed to be a deciding factor in whether the talk page was changed to a redirect (to new talk page) or not.


 * So poking around the WP pages, this method is what I came up with: tag the page with WP:SCN and then put at the top. If the talk page was already redirected to the new talk page, then I'm not sure tagging with WP:SCN would have worked. Yesterday I was browsing through my watchlist for these talk pages and checking each one; Talk:The Raw Story was one of the last remaining non-WP:SCN ones. I suppose I should have just left that one alone, but here we are.


 * Perhaps you can let me know if my method is correct or not. I cannot say I'm perfectly confident in what I'm doing, but it seems correct. If you know of anything I've missed while reading the multitudinous WP pages (redirects, talk pages, moving, etc.), I would appreciate you pointing it out. The last thing I want to do is "fix" something that will need to be fixed again later. Grorp (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! What a project. You are definitely working in good faith in a complicated and confusing area. Keep up the good work. I would say that even if the redirect works properly, you could still leave your template and it wouldn't hurt anything. Just leave the redirect active. May I restore the redirect at The Raw Story (or you do it)? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * How about you do that one. I'll play around with one in the Scientology area to see if I can leave a redirect and add a wikiproject assessment. Grorp (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hubbard
Sorry, didn't see the quotation marks for some reason! Thanks for the explanatory edit summary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed all these edits
You've been reverting some. - it might help if you gave them warnings when appropriate. Shame the DS for scientology was voided. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the SPA till just now. I think at the time I was more involved in researching sources and cleaning up the articles/topic in whole rather than noticing SPA activity and cautioning someone. And yeah... shame the DS isn't still in effect. Grorp (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Doug Weller  talk 06:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard on hold
Hi Grorp. I've finished looking over the L. Ron Hubbard article, and I've put it on hold. See Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/GA2 for detailed comments, though the summary is that the article needs editing and organising to make it more readable and accessible, and I feel it would take some dedicated work over a substantial period of time, so my recommendation is that the review is closed to allow time to develop the article, and then to resubmit it. SilkTork (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did some checking, some corrections, and left a message. I never thought that article was ready for a GA. I didn't nominate it, and the person who did hasn't once chimed in. Grorp (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Grorp. I hadn't checked. I assumed you were the nominator because you were the only one to be responding. I've just looked at the nominator's talkpage and note that they have been nominating a fair number of articles, most of which fail: User talk:Feoffer. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Mixed citations styles
When most of the citations are short ones, and the references are listed, do not bring the full citations back into the article. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There's an tag on the references section complaining about the citation style. I am currently working my way through them and verifying as I go. I am not done, am barely started, and you are interfering. Grorp (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the citations are short. Fix it by moving the rest into works cited. Otherwise you are reverting rather than making forward progress. It's clear what the original intent was, the inline references have been added since the article was made GA. Skyerise (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I put that template on the article, now I've clarified the reason. Moving away from the predominant style violates WP:REFVAR. Skyerise (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It was inappropriate for you to have generalized a specific content issue and broached it here instead of on that specific article's talk page where other editors would be notified of how you want it done and why. Do not repeat such an error on my user talk page again. Grorp (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? Wasn't a content issue. Was a behavior issue: not following WP:REFVAR. That's not something consensus can override. In any case, I've fixed it properly. Have at it, but maintain the predominant citation style. Skyerise (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No. "Behavior" is what I suppressed yesterday after you thoroughly pissed me off with your ownership actions: your immediate summary dismissal of my work in progress, your emphasis that my work was a "behavior" that needed nipping in the bud instead of an honest effort to fix a tagged-as-needing-fixing mixed citation style in a particular article, and your insistence in reverting an article back to the dark ages of wiki encoding which is neither friendly to readers nor editors alike. (Even sfn citation style, which looks identical to readers, would have been easier to maintain than whatever the hell that is that you've morphed everything into.) You had available someone who was willing and able to look up and verify every citation and update them appropriately up until you stomped on me. Still, I was courteous enough to dump my up-to-then findings on the talk page, which I see you made ample use of. But considering the drubbing in this—our first encounter—I fervently hope our wiki paths never cross again. There are oh so many ways you could have handled this differently and created a colleague instead of a foe. Grorp (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Like a hawk
Well spotted! I've seen this nowiki censorship play a few times before (sneaky because it's not an obvious removal in bytes); sometimes in. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And I like your "irony" joke. Grorp (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary, Unfounded, & Loaded Accusations
I removed relatively new content on the 12 tribes communities Wikipedia page just once. No edit warring over it. Then you go put a warning up on my talk page with no explanation of why you think the content should stay, but instead just taking a shortcut to needlessly accuse me of unconstructive editing. This is rather harsh and over bearing.

Something was deleted once that’s relatively new content on an article that has multiple alerts about its neutrality being disputed. If you don’t agree with the removal then revert it and most leave a message telling me why you think it should stay instead of just resorting to an arbitrary and overbearing accusation of disruptive editing. Why don’t you explain yourself here? What’s wrong with the removal I did? Why should it stay up? Why don’t you talk about facts instead of just hurling insults?

In your edit summary, you wrote on Wikipedia we don’t remove content just because we don’t like it. What does this have to do with anything? How do you know I didn’t like it? You don’t have any idea whether I like it.

Hopefully in administrator will be dealing with your conduct.

12.16.115.131 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sure administrator is keeping an eye on this thread. I am the one who put up the tag about neutrality (just 3 days ago), and also the one who added the dance video. Your edit summary was argumentative and not based on Wikipedia policy. That followed another edit you had made to the article's talk page which suggested you might have been following this page for years while now posting as an IP editor (no account). In this case your two edits suggest that you have a strong opinion about Twelve Tribes communities, leading me to suspect you may have some connection with the subject (see WP:COI). I then checked your edit history (contributions) and talk page to discover that you had been recently warned by an administrator for "inappropriate discussion", after which you counter-posted a warning on that admin's user talk page as well as another editor. So yes, in your very short editing history you show a pattern of being disruptive. Rather than simply revert and ignore for this recent edit, I chose instead to give you the formal warning (Template:Uw-disruptive2) to inform you of Wikipedia editing norms and expectations, and give you a chance to learn from the incident. I am disappointed to see your response. Grorp (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Your edit to Applied Scholastics has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That footnote was intended as a cited quote. How better can I format it or code it without putting it into the body of the article as a blockquote? The citation was used other times in the article so I didn't want to piggyback (on the multiref) by using |quote= . Would it work to add quotation marks around the efn'ed quote then append —authorname then the citation? Grorp (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the efn format you should make it an attributed quotation. You could potentially break up the multiref as the quote is only in Part 2, but leaving it as is works ok also in my opinion. (I never did get the point of multirefs.)


 * Another alternative would be to re-write the material in your own words, avoiding the quotations altogether. — Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another alternative would be to re-write the material in your own words, avoiding the quotations altogether. — Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That was helpful. Grorp (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your email
Thank you for the email. I'm not sure what steps to take at this point. I'm very concerned that this is a WP:BATTLE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situation. Please take care how you proceed. Without clearly reliable, independent sources to guide what you want to do, it will look like WP:OR to create a WP:POV. Is the Scientology Project active enough that we could get help there? --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I expect other editors to assume good faith. Accusing me of potential violations that you imagine might happen is the surest way to announce that you have already ended all GF collaboration in favor of policing. Good day. Grorp (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't about assuming good faith. It's about following our policies. Please WP:FOC. There were good reasons why sanctions used to apply to these articles. --Hipal (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Concours Hippique International Officiel moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Concours Hippique International Officiel. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Concours Hippique International Officiel has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Concours Hippique International Officiel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Concours_Hippique_International_Officiel help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Utopes (talk / cont) 05:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your email
Hi! Thanks for your mail – I'm replying here because I really only use email for stuff that's confidential or personal (and not always then). Short answer: I agree 100% – I've been chipping away at it for a decade or more, but it's a steep climb. But looking on the bright side, the dog articles are mostly even more in need of help. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Background, for context: "I had not intended to get involved in the horse breed area (I was aiming for the driving horse articles) but OMG the breed articles are a mess... Is this an area I should consider avoiding as a lost cause, or do you think there's hope for it?")
 * What could you tell me about the typical challenges in the horse breed area of Wikipedia? Can you elaborate on "steep climb"? ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Spin-off articles
Spin-off list articles are held to a different standard of notability than their main topic article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which policy, please? I would expect to see at the top of such an article.  ▶ I am Grorp ◀  01:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's been the consensus at many an AfD. Anyway, I suppose it could be folded into Dirt track racing in the United States. What I was doing was taking the notability tags off of article with lots of pageviews. For instance, List of dirt track ovals in the United States had 1341 pageviews in the last 30 days. By the way, items can be included in a list even if they are not individually notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That list has high pageviews because it had been made into a comprehensive OR DIRECTORY, not because it is inherently notable. I won't bother repeating what I already wrote at AfD—few were listening and no one moved to clean it up, so I work on it when the mood strikes. Per VERIFY, the only way items can be included in a list is if they have a citation, regardless of that item's notability. Folding the [uncited] content into another article doesn't fix the OR problems with that list. If "That's been the consensus at many an AfD" were true, then I would expect it to be in a policy or guideline rather than needing to "divine" standards from past discussions scattered about historical Wikipedia. I suppose lots of pageviews might be an indication of notability, but I don't recall seeing that mentioned in any of the WP notability guidelines. All that said, I'm not otherwise concerned with what you do with notability tags on articles not on my watchlist.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries, it's not like I make a habit of removing notability tags. It's good to see an editor who cares about quality standards. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)