User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive 14

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The British Encyclopedia


The article The British Encyclopedia has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unreferenced since 2007. No indication notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loksmythe (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Quarry
Hi, in case you are still reading.. I could use advice with Quarry 18894 which you wrote and is being used daily by User:GreenC bot/Job 10 for adding. It looks like in January cross database joins will be going away per Wiki Replicas 2020 Redesign. They recommend doing multiple queries and joining results in-application but I am unsure what the multi queries would look like. SQL gives me PTSD :) Any suggestions would be most welcome. -- Green  C  21:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know how to solve this. Sorry. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Query now removed from quarry. You'll have to ask the wikitech people for advice on a suitable replacement in respect of your bot. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please come talk to contributors and WMCS folks over at IRC Freenode:#wikimedia-cloud or on the cloud mailing list. The timeline in that email (which may end up revised to be slower, depending on how some things go) shows that both systems will be live in January and we hope to have both live side-by-side much sooner than that. The idea is to give people time to migrate their work and code over to the new way before we retire it. We hope to get some code samples up to help soon. Quarry will not be able to do multi-database joins once it is on the new system. BStorm (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ShakespeareFan00 for creating a Phab. -- Green  C  00:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bfidb title
Template:Bfidb title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pride of Portree" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pride of Portree. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

JL-Bot
Just for your information: pages that are marked with User:JL-Bot/Project content are generated automatically by User:JL-Bot and, aside from the template at the top, are not meant to be edited manually. Because of that, edits like this one are futile. The bot will overwrite it again in a week. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well then can you please suggest an "appropriate" way of the image gallery caption not confusing the parser then?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * See also: . —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your Recent Nominations at FfD
Hi ShakespeareFan00. I noticed you mass-listing PD files which have been mistagged as non-free at FfD (ex: ). Most of these are clear-cut cases and don't require discussion, so could you please just fix the local license tags (or tag the Commons copy as a copyvio)? Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * They went to FFD, because I don't have the authority here to update them unilaterally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "authority"? There's no hierarchy when it comes to fixing errors.  Please be WP:BOLD and just fix the errors you see, thanks.  -  F ASTILY   07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop
ShakespeareFan00, please stop flooding FfD with low-quality nominations that highlight easily correctible errors (e.g. ). I have a lot of respect for what you've done for the project, but your recent FfD nominations are bordering on disruptive editing. You've been around long enough to know exactly how to fix these, so please start doing that. Thanks,  F ASTILY   04:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You may feel they are easily corrected, but as has been shown with some of them, there have been some doubts from others as to the applicability of a unilateral F8, due to differences in how various licensing and TOO interact. If being cautious and asking at FFD is generating low aulity nominations or is disruptive, then there should be clearer guidance.

In any case you've manged to convince me that I lack the competence to continue with the process of trying to sort this out.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's nonsense, we do have clear guidance on this topic: c:COM:TOO. All I ask is that you spend some more time researching and making an effort to fix errors before jumping straight to FfD.   Nominations such as "Considered a simple logo at Commons c:File:SMIC logo.svg", come off as lazy and low-quality, and the end result is time out of my day cleaning up after you. -  F ASTILY   09:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

IMG
Based on the edit history of your accounts I have to ask you: does "IMG" in your alt account refer to a relationship with IMG (company), who represent beauty pageants? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No connection. It was Sfan00_IMG because most of the edits I was doing on the account were image related. And the alt account was abandoned years ago. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK no problem, thanks for the quick response. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You were doing a COI check? I can understand why you need to check such things in light of recent concerns on wiki. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor it, sorry for bothering you, but I've been chasing beauty pageant sockfarms for a few years now. See User:Bri/COI index for a taste of what it looks like. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980 (cropped).jpg
You've identified File:Charlie Aust on Parade, 1980 (cropped).jpg as a candidate for Commons. It's tagged as PD in Zimbabwe on what I assume is the 50 years criterion. But the image is was taken 1980-10-31. I make that to be PD in 2030. Am I completely missing something here? Because as far as I can tell, the image is not yet PD. It is potentially usable as non-free content as the subject is deceased but that would require some due diligence to verify there are no free images. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Age verfication required
Template:Age verfication required has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:OTRS source
Template:OTRS source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:OTRS source
Template:OTRS source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. B (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Age verification required
Hi! You have added Age verification required to several articles about pornographic websites. I'm going to revert your edits for now, as this seems to me to be potentially ambiguous, and thus has the potential to mislead readers.

For example, does it mean required by the website, required by law, or is there simply an intention to legislate to require this? And, in either case, to what territories or jurisdictions would this apply? You might want to add parameters to specify this, for example with values such as "by website" or names of individual countries or groups of countries.

I've now clarified in the template-generated text that it is age verification of the viewer that is relevant here, and changed the category target to Category:Pages with external links requiring viewer age verification for the same reason. -- The Anome (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am working from a UK viewpoint where content distributors are generally required (or at the very least advised) to confirm the age of viewers for certain types of material (such as that which would be subject to a higher level BBFC certification higher than a PG rating, if included in offline media) forthcoming changes due to the Online Safety Bill will make this a legally backed requirement in respect of much more online media as well,  I gave someexamples in the documentation for the template.)  There is also IIRC an EU directive concerning online video, which is why in the EU (and apparently also the UK) YouTube now age checks for some videos on it content which it's flagged as "Age-restricted". (This BTW includes more than just "nudity" or "sexuality".)


 * The edits you reverted are all examples of the type of site which would come under the "explict/erotic nudity or sexuality" heading.


 * Wikipedia is NOT censored, and so there's clearly no-ban on using age-restricted sources in context. However, it is reasonable to indicate that proof of age may be needed to access a given source, because it's typically an additional step. There are already templates for links that require registration or payment.


 * If you think the wording and documentation can be improved, I am open to a wider effort to improve and clarify this template, or any associated policy. The template itself was a pragmatic creation.


 * ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Do any of these links actually currently require age verification? -- The Anome (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's something that needs checking. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also, unless there is going to be some form of browser-based zero-knowledge proof implementation for age verification available any time soon, any practical age-verification system would surely come under the heading of Registration required, since systems that just require you to enter an birth date or age or tick an "I am over 18" box are totally ineffective. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The system used by You Tube is to ask for a 'credit-card' as verification.
 * Of the links you reverted on, NONE of the sites seem to currently require an age-check (which is a little bit concerning given the EU directive/UK laws around this.) to access the link as presented by Wikipedia. Hmmm... Of course given that these links appear in Context, and Wikipedia isn't censored, I am not going to argue about the reverts you did. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I would of course appreciate an experienced user or admin developing a policy about "sensible" use of this template, BEFORE there's any revert war. Care to add such guidelines?

This is a complex issue. There's certainly a difference between a website being legally required to be age-gated and the site actually implementing age verification checks; even more so when enabling legislation hasn't actually been passed yet. And there's also the difference between strong age verification via third parties vs. self-age-verification on an honor basis. And all of this may vary by jurisdiction and the website's attempts at geolocation of the end user. So it's definitely not a binary choice between age-verified and not age-verified, except in the clear-cut case in which a site were to impose age verification checks globally, whether or not it had been legally required to do so. My best guess is that this is ultimately going to be enforced by decisions made by credit card companies and banks, as with other similar issues. -- The Anome (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As I said the template was more pragmatic then idealistic. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Until sites actually start enforcing age verification, the issue is moot anyway, and for now registration required should suffice for things like YouTube videos. But I'm fine to revisit it later on if circumstances make it appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Age verification required
Template:Age verification required has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)